See other formats

Full text of "Church Dogmatics Volume IV The Doctrine Of Reconciliation Part Three First Half"

THE DOCTRINE OF 
RECONCILIATION 



CHURCH DOGMATICS 

BY 

KARL EARTH 
VOLUME IV 

THE DOCTRINE OF 
RECONCILIATION 



PART THREE 

First Half 



EDITORS 

REV. PROF. G. W. BROMILEY, D.Lirr., D.D. 
REV. PROF. T. F. TORRANCE, D.D., D.THEOL. 



EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 



THE DOCTRINE OF 
RECONCILIATION 

(Church Dogmatics 9 Volume IV, 3, /) 



BY 
KARL EARTH, DR.THEOL., D.D., LL.D. 



TRANSLATOR 

REV. PROF. G. W. BROMILEY, D.Lrrr., D.D. 



EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET 



Original German Edition 

DIE K1RCHLICHE DOGMATIK, IV. 

Die Lehre von dcr Vorsohnung, 3 
Erste Halite 
Published by 

EVANGELISCHER VERLAG A G. 
ZOLLIKON ZURICH 

Authonsed English Translation 

1961 T. & T. CLARK 



PRINTFD IN CRT AT BRITAIN DY 

MORRISON AND GIBB LIMITED 

10NDON AND EDINBURGH 



T. & T CLARK, EDINBURGH 



ran PRINTED 1961 



EDITORS' PREFACE 

IN Church Dogmatics, IV, i Barth outlined the doctrine of reconciliation 
in a threefold form corresponding to the threefold confession of Jesus 
Christ as very God, very Man and the God-Man. The first form 
the theme of IV, i -deals with Christ as the Lord who humbled Himself 
as a servant to do the work of atonement (His priestly office). The 
second the theme of IV, 2 considers Him as the Royal Man in 
whom man is exalted and adopted to fellowship with God (His kingly 
office). Reconciliation is thus effected in two great movements, from 
above downwards and from below upwards, which together exhaust 
the material content of the doctrine. Yet if the work of Christ is not 
to be separated from His person, and if Christology and soteriology 
are not to drift apart from their application and actualisation, there 
is also need of a third form the theme of the present part-volume, 
IV, 3 in which Christ is treated as the God-Man who is the Mediator 
and Guarantor of reconciliation (His prophetic office). 

Since this third, prophetic form demands no less serious treatment 
than the first two, the atonement must now be considered in a third 
dimension in which it manifests, expresses and mediates itself as the 
truth of all truths, alike the truth of God and the truth of man. 
Because Jesus Christ, according to Barth's title, is also " the true 
Witness," the atonement is not merely true ; it is active truth shining 
and revealing itself in the world's darkness and overcoming it. Recon- 
ciliation is not closed in upon itself ; it moves out and communicates 
itself, and is the creative source of a reconciled community and a 
reconciled world. In this third form, it is in the field as the light of 
life, engaged in triumphant self-demonstration in the enlightening 
and quickening power of the Holy Spirit. 

As in the first and second forms, there are important implications 
for man. Jesus Christ, the Servant, unmasks the sin of man as 
pride and achieves his justification. Jesus Christ, the Royal Man, 
opposes the sin of man as sloth and fulfils his sanctification. And 
now Jesus Christ, the true Witness, answers the sin of man as 
falsehood and establishes his vocation. This carries with it the 
sending out of the Christian community as well as its gathering 
and upbuilding, and the life of the individual Christian, not only 
in faith and love, but also in hope. It is in the Church's ministry 
of witness that the self-revealing and self-attesting of the divine 
reconciliation to the world is actualised. 

An outstanding feature of this part-volume is the attention which 
Barth has given to the subjective, apjjjcatioji .oj. iffiqflfijjfefiftft in the 



x Editors' Preface 

involvement of the Christian community in world history. In this 
respect, he emphasises strongly that the Church exists for the world, 
not for itself. Its existence for the world is an essential and masterful 
aspect of its reconciled life in the light and truth of God. We thus 
see the universal sweep of God's self-sacrificial and victorious work. 
We also see the foundations of Earth's understanding of the life and 
work of the Church as determined by mission, evangelism, witness 
and service. 

The size of the part-volume has unfortunately made necessary its 
production in two halves after the pattern of the German original. 
This is, however, a purely technical matter, and so far as possible, 
e.g., in respect of the table of contents, pagination and indexes, 
expression has been given to the essential unity of treatment. In 
spite of the bulk of material, the volume has not presented so many 
problems as some of its predecessors, and we are particularly happy 
to have completed the proofs before the appearance of the German 
IV, 4, so that the whole of the Church Dogmatics thus far completed 
is now available to the English reader. We are again indebted to 
the Rev. Professor J. K. S. Reid for his invaluable assistance at the 
proof stage, not merely in correcting errors, but also in smoothing 
some of the more complicated passages. 

EDINBURGH, Trinity, 1961. 



PREFACE 

THIS time the readers of Church Dogmatics have had to wait longer 
than expected for the continuation. The course of production has 
been slowed up by the fact that my dogmatics class at Basel, with 
which the growth of the book has always been connected, has now 
been reduced to three hours instead of four, and had to be suspended 
altogether in the busy summer of 1956. 

And now there is offered only the first half of IV, 3. The second 
half is almost completed and partly in print, and ought to follow in 
June of this year. It is not willingly that I have assented to the 
division, for I set some store by the formal unity of the individual 
volumes for architectonic and other reasons. However, I can only 
make an incomplete offering. The shape of what is to follow may be 
seen from the complete table of contents which is already given. The 
three indexes will come at the end of the second half. 

The compelling reason for this procedure is that the total bulk of 
the volume has exceeded that which was seriously deplored by so 
many in the case of I, 2. I still cannot imagine how the men of the 
iyth century even handled, as they somehow must have done, the far 
more gigantic tomes sometimes produced in that period. The men of 
the 20th will surely be grateful that this time they will have two halves 
which are " bearable " in the literal sense. 

The question of the meaning and reach of the prophetic office of 
Jesus Christ has led me in this third part of the doctrine of reconcilia- 
tion into a line of study which theoretically and practically, and in the 
most diverse contexts and under the most diverse titles, stands very 
much to the forefront in the discussions now conducted in the Church 
of all confessions. So far as I can see, however, there has hitherto 
been lacking in these a theological basis strictly orientated on the 
evangelical centre. In the theology of the Reformation and post- 
Reformation periods we find little or nothing, and in that of the igth 
and 2oth centuries very little, concerning the decisive presuppositions 
on the basis of which we now think that we are free and compelled to 
pursue the problem of Christ (or the Church) and the world with the 
zeal displayed in so many different ways on both sides of the Atlantic 
and in Christianity both old and new. It cannot be my present purpose 
properly to enter into these discussions, e.g., concerning missions, 
evangelisation, the work of the laity, the Church and culture, Church 
and state, Christianity and Socialism, etc. My task is to try to dis- 
cover the by no means self-evident basic presuppositions, and I have 
finally been compelled to the insight that the confession before men 

xi 



xii Preface 

which is everywhere to be accepted and made is grounded in the work 
of the living Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore does not stand on 
the periphery but belongs to the centre of the life of the Christian in 
the Christian community, the problem of witness deciding indeed 
whether the Christian really is a Christian and the Christian com- 
munity the Christian community. The development of this insight 
as an essential element in the knowledge of Jesus Christ forms the 
main portion of the first half here presented. In the second it will be 
developed more specifically in relation to the Christian and the 
Christian community. The fact that 71, on sin as falsehood, brings 
the first half to an end, whereas the corresponding sections in the two 
preceding volumes can only be transitional, must simply be accepted 
as an unavoidably disruptive feature until the second half is available. 

As regards the external history of Church Dogmatics it may be 
noted that to the successively growing book of Otto Weber there has 
now been added the fine and skilful selection and introduction com- 
piled by Helmut Gollwitzer and published by the Fischer-Bucherei in 
1957. Mention must also be made of the appearance in the Roman 
Catholic world of the comprehensive and penetrating expositions and 
interpretations by Emmanuele Riverso, La teologia esistenziahstica di 
Karl Barth (1955), by Hans Kung, Rechtfertigung. Die Lehre Karl 
Earths und eine kathohsche Besinnung (1957), and by Henri Bouillard, 
Karl Barth (1957, 3 vols.). All these are characterised by profound 
learning, by a serious desire to understand within their own ecclesi- 
astical presuppositions, and by actual understanding, though not 
without some contradictions among themselves. 

Looking back more generally over the years since the appearance 
of the last volume, I am struck by the fact that so many close con- 
temporaries, who have followed my whole course and therefore the 
Church Dogmatics with critical or at least attentive good-will, have 
now passed from the present scene. First I must mention Arthur 
Frey, who for many years directed the Evangehscher Verlag, 
Zollikon, and who always proved a trustworthy adviser and 
personal friend in critical days. Reference may perhaps be made to 
what I have already said concerning him in the Preface to III, 4. 
Shortly before him there died my cousin, the painter, Paul Basilius 
Barth, who belonged to a very different world, but with whom I 
enjoyed a late yet warm personal contact on the occasion of his 
exertions on behalf of a portrait. Again, I must mention my two very 
different friends Pierre Maury of Paris and Heinrich Scholz of Munster 
in Westphalia. How I miss to-day the vehement loyalty of the one 
and the verily humanistic but no less sure and active fidelity of the 
other ! Again, I must refer to my colleague both in Bonn and Basel, 
K. L. Schmidt, far superior to me in both learning and pugnacity, but 
always so stimulating. Mention must also be made of the two stead- 
fast Reformed scholars Hermann Hesse and Harmannus Obendiek, 



Preface xiii 

both associates of the time of the Church conflict in Germany, and 
also of Lukas Christ of Basel, who in his own different manner proved 
no less trustworthy. Again, there is Heinrich Held, President of the 
Evangelical Church of the Rhineland, who as such greeted me on both 
my sixtieth and seventieth birthdays in such unmerited terms of 
personal address, and also the Anglican bishop George Bell, an 
Ecumenicist without guile, who in the summer of 1956 welcomed me 
in his residence in Chichester with a warmth which I shall never 
forget. I must also mention Oskar Farner, the Zwingli scholar and 
expositor, and for many years the acknowledged head of the Zurich 
Church, Liberal in origin, yet with me on the most important things. 
Finally, I must refer to Richard Imberg, director of the deaconess 
house Siloah in Giimlingen, a man of little academic discipline, but for 
that reason the more mature and forceful a theologian, whose warm 
humanity opened up to me a whole new side of the community move- 
ment. There now shines on them the eternal light in which we, adhuc 
peregrinantes, shall some day need no more dogmatics. 

In conclusion, may I express my thanks to Hinrich Stoevesandt 
for his assistance in this volume too, both in revision and in the 
preparation of the indexes. 

BASEL, January 1959. 



CONTENTS 



PAGE 

EDITORS' PREFACE. ....... ix 

PREFACE ......... xi 

CHAPTER XVI 
JESUS CHRIST, THE TRUE WITNESS 

FIRST HALF 
69. THE GLORY OF THE MEDIATOR 

1. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation . 3 

2. The Light of Life ...... 38 

3. Jesus is Victor ....... 165 

4. The Promise of the Spirit . . . . -274 
^70. THE FALSEHOOD AND CONDEMNATION OF MAN 

1. The True Witness ...... 368 

2. The Falsehood of Man ..... 434 

3. The Condemnation of Man . . . . .461 

SECOND HALF 
71. THE VOCATION OF MAN 

1. Man in the Light of Life . . . . .481 

2. The Event of Vocation ..... 497 

3. The Goal of Vocation ...... 520 

4. The Christian as Witness . . . . -554 

5. The Christian in Affliction . . . . .614 

6. The Liberation of the Christian .... 647 

72. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE SENDING OF THE CHRISTIAN 
COMMUNITY 

1. The People of God in World-Occurrence . . .681 

2. The Community for the World .... 762 

3. The Task of the Community ..... 795 

4. The Ministry of the Community .... 830 
73. THE HOLY SPIRIT AND CHRISTIAN HOPE 

1. The Subject of Hope and Hope .... 902 

2. Life in Hope ....... 928 

INDEXES 

I. Scripture References ...... 943 

II. Names ...... . 958 

III. Subjects ........ 960 

xv 



CHAPTER XVI 
JESUS CHRIST, THE TRUE WITNESS 



CHAPTER XVI 
JESUS CHRIST, THE TRUE WITNESS 

69 
THE GLORY OF THE MEDIATOR 

" Jesus Christ as attested to us in Holy Scripture is the one 
Word of God whom we must hear and whom we must trust and 
obey in life and in death." 

i. THE THIRD PROBLEM OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
RECONCILIATION 

The twofold development of the material content of the doctrine 
of reconciliation is now behind us. " Reconciliation " in the sense of 
the Christian confession and the message of the Christian community 
is God's active and superior Yes to man. It is God's active Yes to 
man as it is the fulfilment of the eternal election in which God has 
determined, determines and will again determine Himself for man to 
be his God, and man for Himself to be His man. It is God's superior 
Yes to man as it is the overcoming, in God's omnipotent mercy, of 
the No, the contradiction, the opposition, the disruption in which man, 
if he were left to achieve it, would necessarily destroy his relationship 
to 'God and his fellows, and therefore himself. God does not permit 
him to execute this No of his, this contradiction and opposition. God 
does not abandon him to the mortal peril to which he thereby exposes 
himself. He takes the lists against man and therefore for him, for 
his salvation and for His own glory. He stands by His Yes. He 
accomplishes its actualisation. This is the work of God the Reconciler. 
" Reconciliation " in the Christian sense of the word the reconcilia- 
tion of which we have the attestation in the Holy Scriptures of the 
Old and New Testament, and in the recognition and proclamation of 
which the Christian community has its existence is the history in 
which God concludes and confirms His covenant with man, main- 
taining and carrying it to its goal in spite of every threat. It is the 
history in which God in His own person and act takes to Himself 
His disobedient creature accursed in its disobedience, His unfaithful 
covenant-partner lost in his unfaithfulness. He does this as He 

3 



4 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

both abases and sets Himself at the side of man, yet also exalts man 
and sets him at His own side ; as He both vindicates Himself in face 
of man and man in face of Himself. " Reconciliation " thus means 
and signifies Emmanuel, God with us, namely, God in the peace 
which He has made between Himself and us but also between us and 
Himself. And the one decisive, comprehensive and all-determinative 
factor is that Jesus Christ is this peace in its twofold form. The history 
of its establishment and therefore the history of reconciliation is His 
history. It is the history of His sending and coming, of His life and 
speech and action, of His death and passion and resurrection, of His 
ministry and lordship. In Him God is the One who graciously elects 
man and man is the one who is graciously elected by God. He is the 
actualisation of the covenant between God and man, both on the 
side of God and also on that of man. 

" God our Saviour . . will have all men to be saved " (i Tim. 2 3f -). The 
concrete basis of this statement is to be found in that which immediately follows 
(v. 5) . " For there is one God, and one mediator (/ueaiVijs) between God and man, 
the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all ..." In this one man 
God accomplishes His will, i e , the salvation of all. Whether the statement is 
Pauline or Deutero-Paulme, it is matched by 2 Cor i 19 " For the Son of God, 
Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and 
Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea For all the promises of 
God in him are yea. ..." 

This is the material content of the doctrine of reconciliation. 
Even when we state it in nuce, in a brief outline as here attempted, 
we cannot contemplate it without being aware of at least the indica- 
tions of its twofold development. The history of Jesus Christ with 
which the history of reconciliation is identical is the parallel but 
opposing fulfilment of two great movements, the one from above 
downwards and the other from below upwards, but both grounded in 
His person in the union of its true deity and true humanity. It is a 
matter of the salvation and right of man established in the humiliation 
of the Son of God to be the Brother, Representative and Head of all 
men. And it is a matter of the right and glory of God asserted in the 
exaltation of this Brother, Representative and Head of all men, of 
the true Son of Man. As the one Jesus Christ is both true Son of 
God and true Son of Man, so there take place in His one history both 
the humiliation of God and the exaltation of man, the conflict and 
victory of God for man, and therewith and thereby the achievement 
of covenant faithfulness on both sides, the establishment of peace in 
this twofold form. On the one hand it is opposed by the sin of man 
in its form as pride and therefore by the fall of man ; on the other 
by this sin in its form as sloth and therefore by the misery of man. 
And so in the one work of the omnipotent mercy of God accomplished 
in Jesus Christ, our concern is with the justification of man before Him 
and his sanctification for Him, and in the grace of the Holy Spirit of 



I. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 5 

Jesus Christ with the gathering and upbuilding of the Christian com- 
munity, with the object of humble Christian faith and the basis of 
confident Christian love. In all this we are briefly sketching the two 
first parts of the doctrine of reconciliation as we have presented them 
in IV, i and IV, 2 under the titles " Jesus Christ, the Lord as Servant " 
and " Jesus Christ, the Servant as Lord." 

If we can and will use the expression, this is the inner dialectic of 
the Christian doctrine of reconciliation. It is self-evident that both 
as a whole and in detail very different courses might have been 
adopted, many things being described and formulated and inter- 
related in a very different way from that adopted. Methodus est 
arbitraria. In each age and by each responsible theologian the best 
definitions, combinations and conclusions must always be sought and 
found afresh in dogmatics with a continually new desire for obedience. 
But however things may be seen or pondered or stated as a whole or 
in detail, the standpoints from which this must be done are not a 
matter of arbitrary investigation, discovery and assertion. Apart 
from all else, they are given in and with the name of Jesus Christ. In 
God's Yes to man, in the reconciliation of the world with God, it is a 
matter of this One, and therefore of His deity and humanity, of God's 
humiliation and man's exaltation, of the justification and sanctification 
of man, of faith and love. A doctrine of reconciliation which does not 
present both these aspects with equal seriousness is incomplete, one- 
sided and erroneous. Even if the two cannot be compared, the one 
great Yes of God spoken in Jesus Christ includes both the turning of 
God to man and that of man to God. In all ages and circumstances 
this must emerge in every theology. If only the one or the other 
aspect is treated, or one is not given due weight but obscured by the 
other, too little is said, and therefore in the last resort there is 
distortion. 

'The theology of the early and mediaeval Church spoke fairly commonly of 
a twofold office, a munus duplex, of Christ, and to that extent of two problems 
of the doctrine of reconciliation In this connexion we are reminded of Rev 
5 6f where in the same breath Jesus Christ is described as " the Lion of the tribe 
of Juda which hath prevailed " yet also as " the Lamb as it had been slain " 
In the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs we also meet with the notion that the 
Kyrios descends both from the tribe of Levi and also from that of Judah, the 
one in His office and work as High-priest and the other in His office and work 
as King, the one as God (for this aspect is also seen here) and the other as man 
(Test. Sim 7 and passim) By Justin, Athanasms, Augustine and others, and 
by Peter Lombard in the Middle Ages, He is related to the figures of Aaron on 
the one side, and David, Solomon and even Joshua on the other, as the One 
who fulfils their prophetic existence. The question whether this is legitimate 
or illegitimate allegorising is irrelevant in face of the fact that the material 
content of the Old and New Testaments is rightly perceived as such. Reforma- 
tion theology followed the same tradition Calvin was the one who, imitating 
the early Church, developed the doctrine of the office and work of Jesus Christ 
in the way which comes closest to our own reconstruction. It may be noted 
that he shows a slight tendency to give a certain preference to the kingly office 



6 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of Jesus Christ as compared with the high-priestly (pecultart regni intuitu et 
ratione dictum fuisse Messiam, Instit. II, 15, 2), and that this finds expression 
m the order of the third book to the extent that justification is there treated 
within the comprehensive doctrine of sanctification or regeneration. But it 
could hardly be said that proper justice is not done by him to justification, and 
therefore to its distinctive presupposition in the high-priestly office of Jesus Christ. 
The situation was and is very complicated on the Lutheran side. Here, too, 
the twofold structure (and from the beginning of the iyth century the threefold 
as it had been discovered or rediscovered by Calvin) was adopted. Yet from the 
very first an opposing if not alien concern was also appropriated. From the 
days of Melanchthon's Loci of 1521, the tendency was to concentrate on the 
beneficia Chnsti and therefore not to devote too much attention to the objective 
presupposition of the salvation accomplished for man, i e., to Christology. 
Salvation was predominantly if not exclusively envisaged as a beneficium, 
namely, as the justification of sinful man by faith, and sanctification had only 
as it were a subsidiary role Inevitably therefore, to the extent that there was 
any concern with Christology, the decisive interest was in the high-priestly 
office of Jesus Christ and His kingly office came in for little more than incidental 
mention. The tendency was really to merge the latter into the former. Hence 
we read in Hollaz (Ex theol acroam., 1707, III, i, 3, qu 71) that strictiori sensu 
the whole work of the Mediator is identical with His officium sacerdotale, which 
includes all His other offices The genuinely Lutheran reservation in respect 
of a twofold or threefold view of the matter hardened in the De officio Chnsti 
triphci (1773) of J A Ernesti into the formal contention that it is sufficient and 
alone possible to consider and describe the work of Jesus Christ from the one 
standpoint of satisfactio. Against the background of the genuinely Lutheran 
preference for the doctrine of justification there could be no consistent distinction 
and co-ordination of the two standpoints and points of departure Always there 
was the menace of a flagrant or secret superordmation of the one and subordina- 
tion of the other. Yet even in this sphere, in spite of the readoption of the 
protestation of Ernesti by A. Ritschl (Rechtfertigung und Versohnung, Vol III, 
p. 394 f ) and F H R Frank (System der chnsthchen Wahrheit, 2nd edit , 1894, 
Vol II, p. 201 f ), there has been a continual if not very confident return to this 
distinction and co-ordination, even Schleiermacher (The Christian Faith, 102) 
contending for it in the light of his presuppositions and the corresponding lines 
of argument. That this is the case is an indication that in the union in opposition 
of the priestly and kingly offices of Jesus Christ (and therefore of justification 
and sanctification, of faith and love), as this was perceived already in the theology 
of the early Church, we do not have an arbitrarily invented theologoumenon, 
but a necessity grounded m the thing itself. 

When, therefore, the early Church spoke of this union in opposition, 
and therefore of a munus duplex of Jesus Christ, of His priestly and 
kingly office, it was justified to the extent that the material content 
of the doctrine of reconciliation is in fact exhausted by what has to be 
thought and said from these two christologico-soteriological stand- 
points. Concerning that which takes place in the history which is the 
theme of the doctrine of reconciliation there is to be said, with all 
kinds of expansions or contractions or variations as a whole and in 
detail, and with equal emphasis upon the two constituent elements, 
the one fact that it is a fulfilment of the saying : "I will be your God, 
and ye shall be my people." In our own development we have started 
with the person and work of Jesus Christ, for to say reconciliation is 
necessarily to name at once this name in which it is accomplished. 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 7 

But starting from Him and His fulness, we think at once in terms of 
this union in opposition, and we note at once that there can be no 
question of anything different or higher or better than what is to be 
thought and said in these terms. To apply an additional test, no other 
result could be achieved even if we replaced this name by such material 
concepts as redemption or the kingdom of God or true life. This is 
not merely because, if we are not to fill out these concepts arbitrarily, 
we must always return to the name from which we ourselves have 
preferred to start. It is also because in their development, presup- 
posing our loyalty to the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, 
we are irresistibly compelled first to look and think from above down- 
wards, from God to man, but then also and with the same seriousness 
from below upwards, from man to God. And we then realise that in 
the strange twofold movement which we necessarily perceive and follow 
we are dealing with the whole of the history in which God gives to 
man salvation but also causes man to give Him glory. 

Yet the fact remains that there is a third problem of the doctrine 
of reconciliation which, if it has to be posed and answered differently, 
has still to be treated with the same seriousness as the first two, so that 
if we disregard or fail to develop and answer it the doctrine is just as 
incomplete in relation to its theme as if one of the first two were 
neglected in favour of the other, as seems to be the constant threat in 
Lutheran theology. For the reconciliation which is our concern 
in this doctrine, i.e., the history of Jesus Christ as the great act of 
God which the Christian community confesses and by which it may 
live, itself takes place in a third dimension which we have not yet 
explicitly considered, and it would not be this history if it did not 
take place in this direction too. The witness of the Bible, to which 
theology is responsible in respect of the fulness as well as the accuracy 
of its discussions and formulations, is in all portions full of traces of a 
further specific element of the event attested by it, if only we have 
ears to hear. If this element rests on the distinctness and difference 
of the two first, it is not identical with either. If it is in unity with 
them, it is not merely their unity as such, but the one event in a form 
which is distinct from both and must be considered separately. We 
could not actually have described it in the first two forms if it did not 
have this third and if we did not take preliminary account of the 
fact that it does take place in this form too. But we must now speak 
of it independently in this third form, in the light of which we must 
also consider the first two. 

What is the point at issue ? There can be no question of a further 
development of our material knowledge of the event of reconciliation. 
The truth remains that what God did and does and will do as the 
Reconciler of the world with Himself in Jesus Christ is exhausted in 
what has to be thought and said from the first two standpoints. But 
this intrinsically perfect and insurpassable action has a distinct 



8 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

character. For as it takes place in its perfection, and with no need 
of supplement, it also expresses, discloses, mediates and reveals itself. 
It is to be noted that there is not revealed anything different, higher 
or deeper, any independent truth. It expresses, discloses, mediates 
and reveals itself, not as a truth but as the truth, in which all truths, 
the truth of God particularly and the truth of man, are enclosed, 
not as truths in themselves, but as rays or facets of its truth. It 
declares itself as reality. It displays itself. It proclaims itself. It 
thus summons to conscious, intelligent, living, grateful, willing and 
active participation in its occurrence. But already we are anticipating 
what is achieved and effected in virtue of this third element in its 
occurrence. The basic and all-decisive factor is that, no matter what 
the result may be or what may be achieved or effected, it displays 
and proclaims itself as truth, and indeed as the truth. For it is the 
event we speak of Jesus Christ in which the covenant between God 
and man is sealed on both sides, in which peace is established both 
from above and from below, and in which the justification and sancti- 
fication of man are both accomplished, whether or not there is response 
in the faith and love of a single individual. Its donation sovereignly 
precedes all reception on our part in the fact that in itself it is not 
merely real but true, the truth, and that as such it is not dark and 
dumb but perspicuous and vocal, that it may and will therefore be 
received, but is independent of our actual reception, being the 
sovereign basis of all reception and therefore conditioning our recep- 
tion but not conditioned by it. This is the third element or dimension 
of the event of reconciliation, the Christ event. And the third 
problem of the doctrine of reconciliation is to see that it is an event 
in this character too, and to what extent. 

For all our reservations in respect of a possible misuse of the 
term, this might be described as the formal problem of the doctrine 
as distinct from the first two material problems. Its concern is with 
the How of the event in its inalienable distinction from the What. 
Its relationship to the latter is indissoluble. Revelation takes place 
in and with reconciliation. Indeed, the latter is also revelation. As 
God acts in it, He also speaks. Reconciliation is not a dark or dumb 
event, but a perspicuous and vocal. It is not closed in upon itself, but 
moves out and communicates itself. It is event only as it expresses, 
discloses, and mediates itself, as it is not merely real but also true, 
and as true as it is real. Yet the relationship is indissoluble from the 
other side as well. Revelation takes place as the revelation of recon- 
ciliation, as the How of this What, as the self-declaration of this 
history, as the truth of this reality, and not otherwise. It is the 
predicate, the necessary determination, of this subject. But it has no 
independent being in face of it, and it certainly cannot take its place. 
Reconciliation is indeed revelation. But revelation in itself and as 
such, if we can conceive of such a thing, could not be reconciliation. 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 9 

It takes place as reconciliation takes place ; as it has in it its origin, 
content and subject ; as reconciliation is revealed and reveals itself in it. 

In Jn. I 4f - we read concerning the Logos (who m the Prologue to John is 
the Revealer whose history is narrated in the Gospel and who is thus concretely 
the Son sent by the Father, the man Jesus) : "In him was life , and the life 
was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness." 

By onj R. Bultmann (Das Ev. des Joh., 1950, p 21 f.) understands " the 
vitality of all creation " which according to v 3 (which tells us that " all things 
were made by him ") has its origin in the Logos And in what follows it is then 
said that in and with this life of creation light, i.e., the possibility of revelation, 
is given from the very first and granted to what is created. By " light " and 
therefore " revelation " (as the revelation of creation) there is thus understood 
the enlightenment of human existence in order that man should understand 
himself in his world and find his way without anxiety an opportunity which is 
lost (" the light shmeth in darkness ") through the fact that he lays hold of 
oKoria instead of <f>a>s as another possibility of self-understanding. 

On this interpretation our first comment must be that in this passage dark- 
ness and light, and therefore revelation, are not described as " possibilities," 
and certainly not as possibilities of human " self -understanding " But it is said 
of light at any rate that it is a determination or character of the life which was 
and is in the Logos Jesus For in the whole of John's Gospel there is no context 
in which the word 017 (whether with or without cu'auao?) can be understood of 
a vitality imparted to creation as such On the contrary, 0^17 is the indestructible 
new life which according to Jn 5 28 the Son and He alone has in Himself when 
it is given Him by the Father, m order that He, the " bread of God," should 
impart it to the cosmos and humanity According to W Bauer (Ev. d Joh., 
1908, p. 35), onj is " the fulness of all the benefits of salvation promised for the 
Messianic age " We may confidently add that as the essence of all these benefits 
it is reconciliation In anticipation of 5 28 it is said of this even m the Prologue 
that in its particularity it was m Him, the Logos Jesus, who according to v. i 
was in the beginning with God and was Himself God In the further course of 
the Gospel we then have the saying attributed to Jesus Himself in n 26 and 14* . 
" I am the life." That it is another life which is m question is a notion which 
is dismissed as soon as it is raised by the differentiating expression 1} 0077 (" this 
life "). " This life was the light of men " This life was and is enclosed, or 
rather breaks through and expresses itself, in its Bearer, as the life given to Him 
an4 m Him to the world By its presence it speaks m and for itself As such it 
is light, shining among the men to whom it is addressed, shining in their darkness. 
It reveals itself For again in John's Gospel there is no passage in which </>&$ 
could be described as a light shining from creation. According to v 9 it lightens 
all men as a light which " cometh into the world " and as the " true light," i.e , 
as the light of the new life (TO </>s rfjs Ccofjs, 8 ia ) For the enlightenment of human 
existence in the form of a new self-understanding ? Why not ? Yes, indeed. 
But above all for the real alteration of the world and man, for his awakening to 
faith and love, in accordance with the fact that it causes him to recognise his 
justification and sanctification as they have taken place m Jesus Christ, and 
therefore his true life in Him, and thus to live anew in the creative power of this 
recognition. Yet it is not from the fact that it does and achieves all this that 
it has enlightening power and the dynamic of revelation, but from the fact that 
it proceeds from the reconciling life actuahsed in Jesus, that it is the light of this 
life. How could it help man even to the enlightenment of human existence in 
a new self-understanding if it were not the light of this life ? What is said in 
Jn. i 4f is that this life in its determination as light, reconciliation in its character 
as revelation, is outgoing and self-communicative, so that, as it has taken place 
in the world, it breaks out and goes into the whole world, to every man (v. 9). 



io 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

The third problem of the doctrine of reconciliation is thus proposed 
and set by the simple fact that, as reconciliation takes place, it also 
declares itself. We may take a quick glance at the whole of the new 
chapter which opens up before us. The justification and sanctification 
of man include his vocation, as his pride and sloth also include his 
falsehood. The gathering and upbuilding of the community include 
its sending. The faith and love of the Christian include Christian 
hope. At the end of this third part of the doctrine of reconciliation, 
when it is a matter of the Christian community and the life of the 
individual Christian, we shall have to speak of the work of the Holy 
Spirit in which the event of reconciliation is concretely active and 
perceptible in this character of self -declaration, establishing know- 
ledge and evoking confession. But, as already indicated, it does not 
have this character only when it is active and perceptible in this 
work and there are men whose participation is shown in the fact that 
they follow the calling issued to them. In itself it is the basis of 
knowledge even where there does not correspond to it the knowledge 
of a single man. It speaks, it declares and glorifies itself, it is out- 
going and self-communicative, even before it attains its goal in the 
creaturely world in which it takes place, and to that extent without 
attaining it. The power with which it does attain its goal in the work 
of the Holy Spirit rests upon the fact that already in itself it is out- 
going and self-communicative, announcing, displaying and glorifying 
itself. It is not merely light but the source of light. As the light of 
eternal life it is eternal light in the midst of the darkness of the human 
world which surrounds and threatens it. It is victorious and powerful 
even when it is only moving towards its victory. Its actual victory 
is accomplished in the work of the Holy Spirit. But the work of the 
Holy Spirit in and to the Christian community and its members, in 
which it is recognisable and perceptible as self-declaration in calling 
as well as justification and sanctification, in the sending of the Christian 
community into the world as well as its gathering and upbuilding, 
in the hope as well as the faith and love of Christians this work of 
the Holy Spirit creates new facts only to the extent that the revelatory 
character of reconciliation is confirmed in it, and such phenomena as 
the knowing and confessing community, and individual Christians as its 
members, are introduced amongst other world phenomena, having 
their own basis in the revelatory character of reconciliation and to 
that extent in the event of reconciliation. This objectivity of even 
its revelatory character must be emphasised so expressly because 
misunderstanding can so easily creep in, as if the problem of the 
knowledge, understanding and explanation of reconciliation, or more 
generally of the doctrine of reconciliation as such, of the question 
how there can possibly be even the most rudimentary theology and 
proclamation of reconciliation, were really a problem of the theory 
of human knowledge and its spheres and limitations, its capacities 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation n 

and competencies, its possible or impossible approximation to this 
object. Only too easily the reference to the enlightening work of 
the Holy Spirit can be understood as the final and then, like a Deus 
ex machina, the very doubtful word of such a theory of knowledge. 
But this reference is the last word of the doctrine of reconciliation 
itself. It is only as such that it can be meaningful, namely, as a 
reference to the fact that in the power of reconciliation itself, i.e., of 
its character as revelation, in virtue of the self-attestation of Jesus 
Christ, there are world phenomena which have their basis in it. If 
this reference is not to be left hanging in the air, it is necessary to hold 
fast not only to the objectivity of reconciliation as such and its occur- 
rence in the world, but also to the objectivity of its character as 
revelation, to the a priori nature of its light in face of all human 
illumination and knowledge. There is human knowledge, and a 
theology of reconciliation, because reconciliation in itself and as such 
is not only real but true, proving itself true in the enlightening work 
of the Holy Spirit, but first true as well as real in itself, as disclosure, 
declaration and impartation. This is the basis of certainty and clarity 
when it is a matter of the knowledge of Jesus Christ and His work 
through the work of the Holy Spirit. This basis, therefore, must be our 
opening theme. In this third part, too, we shall have to speak first of 
Jesus Christ, and only then of the men to whom He is Brother, Re- 
presentative and Head, only then of their knowledge of Jesus Christ. 

We did not complete the New Testament quotations previously adduced, 
i Tim 2 6 does not say of the man Jesus Christ only that as the one Mediator 
between God and men He gave Himself a ransom for all. Beside this statement 
there is placed another which obviously points to a different dimension, namely, 
that He gave Himself TO paprvpiov Kaipols t'SiW, to be a necessary witness con- 
tinually speaking to His times, i e , the times to be determined by Him. In 
conjunction with the 8ovs, therefore, we have a threefold accusative and equa- 
tion : eavr6v=Xvrpov=iJ.apTvpiov The one mediatorial man is or works or acts 
both, as ransom and witness, both as Reconciler and Revealer, and as the latter 
as and because He is the former. It is on the fact that Jesus is the latter, 
TO paprvpiov , that Paul grounds the statement concerning himself in v. 7. It 
is because the One who accomplishes reconciliation Himself reveals Himself as 
such that he can say " I am ordained a preacher (icfjpvf), and an apostle (I 
speak the truth in Christ, and lie not ,) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and 
verity," and, in the light of what precedes, we must add for the sake of com- 
pleteness, " in the Kaipos iSios allotted to me by Him." Thus, it is first Jesus 
Christ Himself in His person and action who declares Himself to be the Reconciler 
and as such also the Revealer, and then, on the basis of the latter aspect, there 
is human kerygma and apostolate and SiSaoxoAi'a in the Gentile world 

There is an exact parallel in 2 Cor. i 20 : " For all the promises of God in him, 
i e , the Son of God Jesus Christ (v. 19), are yea," the Yes of God m Jesus Christ 
being their sum and meaning and substance And to this there is added the 
decisive statement : Sto /ecu Si* avrov (again through Him) TO apyv, unto the glory 
of God by us (the apostle) That the Yes of God is in Him is one thing But 
this Yes of God spoken in Him has it in itself to be the power by which there is 
an Amen to the glory of God In the Old Testament already Amen is the recog- 
nition of a word which binds and commits because it is spoken by GocJ or in HJS 



12 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

name. Especially it is the solemn agreement in the praise of God as proclaimed 
and heard, eg., in a doxology. In the primitive Christian community it seems 
to have been used sooner or later as a formula of liturgical acclamation by believers 
in confessional evocation or publication of the name of God in His great acts in 
Jesus Christ. We may recall the Amen and the Even so, Amen of the salutation 
of Revelation (i ef> ) in response to the recollection of the love of Jesus Christ, 
of the deliverance effected by Him, and of the creation of the new people of God 
as His work, and to the announcement of His final and definitive revelation. 
Amen confirms the certain truth and therefore the trustworthiness of the Yes 
which it answers. It shows that it is revealed in its glorious majesty and authority 
to the one who utters it. But according to 2 Cor. i ao this response to the Yes of 
God spoken in Jesus Christ is not first pronounced by the world or the com- 
munity or the apostle. First and properly and basically, as the presupposition 
of all that follows, it is pronounced by the very One in whom the Yes is also 
spoken. To be sure, Paul understands all his work and proclamation among 
the Corinthians as an Amen spoken to the glory of God. But he does not mean 
that he has taken it upon himself to pronounce this Amen. He is merely follow- 
ing the One who has pronounced it first and properly and basically with His 
Yes. It is from Jesus Christ Himself that it has power as pronounced by the 
apostle. It is because it has power from Jesus Christ that Paul can say in v. 18 : 
irtaros o 0t 6s. God Himself is the Pledge to Paul and the Corinthians that His 
Word among them is not both Yes and No, but an unequivocal because intrinsic- 
ally certain, reliable and valid Yes Without this presupposition neither he nor 
the Corinthians could be sure of his Amen. But on this presupposition they can 
and should be. 

That we are to understand the passage in this way is shown by the remark- 
able " Amen (repeated in John), I say unto you " with which Jesus does not 
round off but precedes certain pronouncements both in the Synoptics and John. 
As and because it is Jesus who makes these pronouncements, Amen may be said 
to them from the very outset. He Himself makes them valid, and they can and 
should, therefore, be accepted as valid, sure and trustworthy by those who hear 
them. H. Schlier (in ThWNT on d/irjv) has rightly pointed out that " all 
Christology is contained in nuce " in this formula The Yes of Jesus demands 
recognition and consent on the part of those who hear it, but it does not need 
them to be true and valid and thus to claim recognition and agreement with 
absolutely compelling force. The Yes of Jesus triumphantly bears in itself 
the positive acceptance proper to it. It triumphantly bears in itself its own 
Amen. It is for this reason that it is a mighty promise awakening faith and a 
mighty claim demanding obedience This is the cfovaia which distinguishes 
His teaching from that of the scribes (Mt 7 29 ) The people are " astonished " 
or " startled " because His SiSaoxciv, i e., His announcement of the kingdom of 
God, His self-declaration as the direct attestation of its presence, His Yes, 
includes in itself the Amen even as and before it takes place. Hence, and in this 
sense, the saying : " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased , hear 
ye him " (Mt. ij 6 ). Hence, and in this sense, the answer of Jesus to Pilate's 
question whether He is a king : " Thou sayest that I am a king " (Jn. i8 87 ). 
But then He adds : "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the 
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth," and in Jn. 14* this is accentu- 
ated and sharpened by the declaration : "I am (as the way and the life, so also) 
the truth." And there is the same accentuation in Rev. 3 14 where Jesus Christ 
is described as the One who not only speaks Himself the Amen to the Yes 
actualised in Him, but is Himself, not TO but 6 apty, the Amen, and in this totality 
" the faithful (i.e., trustworthy) and true witness " this is where we found the 
title for the present chapter and to that extent the Apostle (Heb. 3 1 ) and 
Prophet (Jn. 6 14 ). 

It is against this background that we may see how even in the early Church 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 13 

the classical doctrine of the munus duplex of Jesus Christ, of the twofold form of 
reconciliation, came to be deepened, and there was asserted a third orientation 
of the event of reconciliation in Christ and therefore in its totality. Even the 
Johannine triad already mentioned (Jn i4 e ), and the declaration of i Cor. i* 
that Christ is made unto us wisdom and righteousness and sanctification, must 
surely have caused them to consider whether Jesus Christ the High-priest and 
King, the Lord who became a Servant and the Servant who became a Lord, 
should not also be regarded, in a full evaluation of this being and work of His as 
very God and man, as " the Amen, the faithful and true witness," the Revealer 
and Guarantor of His own reality and therefore of the salvation of man and the 
glory of God , whether a decisive feature in the portrayal of the event attested 
in the Old and New Testament witness is not overlooked or obscured, and a 
decisive question of Christian knowledge suspiciously left open, if it is not seen 
and formally stated that the Lord and Servant in whom the divine act of atone- 
ment takes place is not also the One who declares, makes known and reveals 
this act and therefore Himself to the community and the world ; whether all 
clear and certain knowledge of this event, all human perception of God grounded 
upon it, is not primarily His own work and gift no less than the justification of 
man before God and his sanctification for Him, namely, the work and gift of his 
calling, as also based upon it We may refer to Col. 2 s "In whom are hid all 
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." To the indwelling irXrfpwfjM rijs terfnjTos 
of which we read in the parallel verse in Col 2", does there belong only the 
material fact that He is made unto us justification and sanctification (or in 
Johannine language that He is the way and the life), and not also the formal fact 
that He is the truth, that He is made unto us wisdom > In the decisive context 
of Jn i lf is there not said of Jesus the highly singular thing that as the One 
whose history the Gospel narrates He is the Logos, the Word, the Revealer of 
God, that He does not merely become this subsequently in time but is it m the 
eternity of God Himself, and that as such He has come into the world and been 
made flesh ? 

It is surely because of the actual pressure of such questions that in the 4th 
century (as first appears in Eusebius of Caesarea, Ev dem , IV, 15 etc., and then 
in the 5th century in Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo 54) mention is made of a three- 
fold office, Christ being not only Priest and King but also, in the express words 
of Jn 6 14 , " that prophet that should come into the world " The bringing 
together of these three functions and titles was not new in itself. Josephus 
referred to them as the rpia KpaTiarevovra with reference to the Maccabean 
hero John Hyrcanus (Bell jud , i, 2, 8), probably on the basis of an older Jewish 
tradition which as tertium compavatwms could hardly have before it anything 
but the fact that the dignity and authority of these three theocratic offices in 
the Old Testament may be traced back to a common anointing. In introducing 
the threefold scheme Christian theology seems formally to have linked it with 
the title of Jesus as Christ, the Anointed of God Yet it is to be noted that in 
the Cyrillme anathemas of the Council of Ephesus (431) it is obviously not in 
any connexion with the name of Christ as such, but m dependence on Heb. 3 l , 
that Jesus is called the apxiepeus icai aTroaroAo? TTJS o/uoAoytay -fffjuav (can. 10). 
The threefold schema did not by any means secure general adoption in the early 
and mediaeval Church That it was known appears from the reference in Thomas 
Aquinas (S theol , III, qu 22, art i, ad 3) * ahus est legislator et alius sacerdos 
et ahus rex , sed haec omma concurrunt in Christo tanquam in fonte omnium 
gr ah arum. But there is no development in Thomas or elsewhere of what is meant 
by the legislatio of Christ as a form of the reconciling grace revealed in Him. 

Proper weight was given to this third element in the Christ occurrence and 
the occurrence of reconciliation only in the theology of the Reformation, or 
more precisely in the later editions of Calvin's Institutio (n, 15) and his Catechism 
(39 and 44, cf. Heidelberg Catechism, Qu. 31-32). 



14 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Calvin had found it in the theological tradition from which he derived (sub 
papatu), but it had been conceived and presented only frigide nee magno cum 
fructu. His desire was to bring it to light in a completely different way. As he 
saw it, in Jesus Christ we have to do with the lux intelligentiae expected in the 
Old Testament, as in the confession of the Samaritan woman in Jn. 4" : "I 
know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ : when he is come, he will tell 
us all things (awovro dvayyeAet)." In distinction from all other teachers, Jesus 
received and enjoyed the prophetic Spirit in fulness, and that not only for Him- 
self but for His own, for the life of His whole earthly body the Church. He is 
the revelation of truth in which all prophecy has reached its goal and beside 
which there can be no other. En descendant au monde il a ete Messager et Ambas- 
sadeur souverain de Dieu son Pere, pour exposer pleinement la volonte d'iceluy au 
monde . . . pour Sire Maitre et Docteur des siens, with the object de nous introduire 
a la vraie cognoissance du Pere et de sa vente tellement que nous soyons foohers 
domestiques de Dieu, the Heidelberg Catechism also adding : " That I also may 
confess his name." 

This doctrine of the munus Chnsti propheticum, and therefore of a munus 
triplex Christi, then made its way into Lutheran theology, though hesitantly 
and with some degree of incompatibility, as already mentioned. It is also 
found, its introduction obviously corresponding to a generally perceived necessity, 
in the Cat. Romanus (1566, Qu. 194 f ), and more recently it has been adopted 
by J. M. Scheeben and all subsequent dogmaticians as a well-established element 
in Roman Catholic theology, Scheeben grudgingly but openly admitting (Handb. 
der kath. Dogm , 1925, Vol. 3, p. 268) that Protestants had given a lead m this 
respect, though clearly with the evil intention of ascribing revelation to Jesus 
Christ alone. 

In relation not only to Lutheran and Roman Catholic but also the older 
Reformed theology (including Calvm), the question can and must be asked, 
however, to what degree the meaning, importance and relevance of this newly 
discovered or rediscovered third problem of the doctrine of reconciliation are 
really grasped and brought out either then or more recently. For in detail there 
seem to be all kinds of obscurities. 

After the example of Calvin, the development of this problem usually pre- 
ceded that of the other two In the sense of the a^v Xcyw vplv of the Gospels, 
this could draw attention to the fact that everything subsequently said from 
the other two standpoints had a priori certainty from the fact that it is attested 
and guaranteed by Jesus Christ Himself But neither Calvin nor any of his 
successors based the precedence given to the munus propheticum upon this. 
Yet the element of uncertainty regarding the interrelating of the prophetic and 
other offices could have unhappy consequences What was supposed to be 
the theme and content of the prophetic or revelatory action of Jesus Christ ? 
At this point Calvin spoke of the will and truth of the Father and Wolleb (Chr. 
Theol. comp., 1624, i, 17, 2) referred briefly to ventas coelestis In the Heidelberg 
Catechism (Qu. 31) it is explained that it is a matter of " the secret will and 
counsel of God concerning our redemption," and m the Syntagma of Polanus 
(1610, VI, 29) it is stated even more explicitly to be a matter of the true doctrine 
of eternal salvation, the distinction of the true God from false gods, the indica- 
tion of the right way to be taken by believers, supremely by the revelation of the 
Gospel, but also by the true exposition of the Law and the prophesying of things 
to come. In the Synopsis of F. Burmann (1678, V, 12) it is emphasised that 
what are at issue are the verba Dei, quae Deum Deique F ilium solum proloqui fas 
est, and materially the revelation of the whole mystery of redemption These 
are the kind of formulations which are given, and they can and must be inter- 
preted in meliorem and even in optimam partem. The more strongly it was 
underlined, as by Polanus and many others, that the prophecy or teaching of 
Jesus Christ is primarily that of the Gospel, the closer was the approximation 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 15 

to the real heart of the matter. But already m the Leidener Synopsis (1624, 
26, 39 f .) there is another note : that it is a matter of veritas legalts et evangehca, 
and this is also found in F. Turrettini (Theol. el., 1682, XIV, 7, 5) toward the 
end of the century. Did this kind of expression denote a real grasp of the subject, 
or a reference to the self-revelation of Jesus Christ ? Was there not the danger 
that along the lines of the doubtful expression of Thomas Aquinas Jesus Christ 
would be primarily understood as legislator, i.e., as the authentic exponent of 
the divine Law and perhaps of general divine law, or more radically as the 
Revealer, not of Himself m His actuality, nor of the history of reconciliation 
enacted in Him, but of a principle and system of divine truth with saving signific- 
ance for man, in which a place could also be found for what had to be said con- 
cerning the high-priestly and kingly offices ? The possibility might present itself 
indeed, it had been already grasped in the i6th century in the Unitarian 
theology and church founded by Faustus Socmms, and it was later seized again 
by the Christian Enlightenment to gather together the one and total function 
of Jesus Christ m His prophetic office of witness and teaching, to understand 
the historical being and work of the Mediator as merely the manifestation, 
declaration and exemplification of a timeless idea of reconciliation as the true 
ventas coelestis, and thus in short to substitute a Gospel of Jesus Christ for the 
Gospel concerning Him. Self-evidently this was not what Calvin and his Re- 
formed and Lutheran successors had in view. But we can and must say that in 
their exposition there were no adequate safeguards against this final result. 

A second uncertainty arose out of the lack of clarity concerning the inner 
relationship of the revelation of Jesus Christ and His work. This emerged in 
the preponderant tendency to understand the relationship of the three media- 
torial functions e ratione executions, i.e., as that of different stages in the course 
of the history of Jesus, and therefore in a historical framework. First, He acted 
as Prophet m His proclamation of the kingdom of God in Galilee and Jerusalem, 
then as High-priest m His death and passion, finally as King in His resurrection 
and ascension. This is the way m which it is presented by Wendelm (Chr. Theol., 
1634, I, 17, 3). But in this construction the unity of the event of reconciliation 
is obscured by the specific actual significance of the individual elements. And 
if the munus propheticum is only the first stage in the history of Jesus, followed 
by His action in the munus sacerdotale and regium, it is put in the shade by their 
superior light as m a sense provisional, and cannot therefore receive the justice 
due to it. That this problem was perceived is clear from the distinction made 
by H. Heidegger (Medulla, 1696, 19, 19) that, while this sequence is true or dint 
executions (historically), yet or dine intentioms the work of Christ in the munus 
propheticum derives from and follows what He does m the munus regium and 
sacerdotale. The reason for this distinction is clear enough, but we are not shown 
in what sense there is supposed to be an ordo executions which is so very different 
from the ordo intentions, or m what sense or with what justification the idea of 
ordo (with its necessary ranking) is introduced at all. Is this really necessary 
or possible as between the reality of Jesus Christ as Servant and Lord and its 
character as truth ? But it is in the same historical abstraction that the Roman 
Catholic J. Pohle (Lehrb. d. Dogm., Vol. II, 1903, p. 223 f.) understands the 
teaching office of Jesus Chnst, and he does not even see the necessity to make 
the reservation attempted by Heidegger. 

A third question concerns the way in which Jesus Christ is said to be the 
" chief Prophet and Teacher " (Heidelberg Catechism, Qu. 31, with a verbal 
parallel in the Cat. Rom., I, 3, 7 : the summus propheta et magister). What is 
meant by the superlatives used at this point by the Roman Catholics, e.g., 
F. Diekamp (Kath. Dogm., Vol. II, 1930, p. 333 f.) when he says that the teaching 
office is supreme because grounded on the fullest knowledge and exercised most 
fully and with supreme authority ? Calvin had said much more succinctly 
that He is the Bearer of the only revelation, in and with which all others are 



i6 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

superfluous, and Polanus had said more precisely that in His Word a distinction 
is made between God and idols. All the older Protestants expressed themselves 
to the same effect, and in the Roman Catholic dogmatics quoted Christ is " our 
only Teacher to whom the prophets point and from whom all the teachers com- 
missioned by Him derive," B. Bartmann (Lehrb. d. Dogm., Vol. II, 1928, p. 377 f.) 
describing Him as the " only Prophet " and " absolute Teacher." But were 
the older Protestant orthodox sure of their ground in this respect ? And can we 
say of the Roman Catholic theologians that their summits really means umcus ? 
How did it come about that so zealous a Reformed teacher as J. Piscator, on the 
very first page of his aphorisms on Calvin's Institutio (1589), could interpret the 
doctrine of the Genevan master to the effect that, as proved by the fact of heathen 
religions and the direct terror of man at thunder and lightning, there is a cognitio 
naturahs, i e., hominum mentibus a natura insita, a direct revelation of at least 
the Creator and of our obligation to honour Him ? How did it come about that 
at the time of transition from the i7th to the i8th century it proved so easy, 
even in Protestantism, formally to set alongside or before the theology supposedly 
based upon revelation a natural theology "> And what are we to make of the loud 
protestations of Roman Catholic theologians when they have always so self- 
evidently reckoned with a twofold revelation and knowledge of God ? It is for 
this reason that Scheeben, rightly from his own standpoint, takes such offence 
that at this point Protestants seem to be trying to describe Jesus Christ if 
only they had done it with more power and consistency ! as the only Revealer 
of God The general question must be put whether in the determination to 
bring to light the munus Chnsti propheticum the cost was really counted or the 
deductions were considered which must follow if such great utterances are made 
with genuine seriousness 

A fourth complex of questions is opened up by the definite statement of Calvin 
that Jesus Christ has received the dignity and commission of the prophetic 
office not merely for His own person but for His whole body the Church. In 
exposition of this statement the later Reformed dogmaticians (e g , the Leidener 
Synopsis, 26, 39, 41) liked to distinguish between His direct exercise of this 
office by Himself (per seipsum) and His indirect through others (per alias ad- 
ministros verbi sui], i e , through the prophets and apostles How are we to 
understand this ' We must first ask whether the distinction between per seipsum 
and per ahos is really possible Even in the Old and New Testaments, is there 
really any utterance of Christ per seipsum which is not also per altos ? Surely 
He causes Himself to be heard only in the witness of Scripture and its proclama- 
tion, and not otherwise Conversely, is not His whole utterance per altos true 
and authoritative only in virtue of the fact that in this mediation He speaks 
per seipsum ' How could or would the witness of Scripture and its proclamation 
be true and powerful if He did not cause Himself to be heard in it ? Yet at a 
pinch we might well have come to an understanding with the older dogmaticians 
on this point. More serious is the question whether they were right, and especi- 
ally the Reformed, when they tried to think of the prophecy of Jesus Christ as 
limited to the Old and New Testament witnesses. The Lutherans (e.g , J. 
Gerhard, Loci, 1610, IV, 322) spoke more freely of the indirect transmission of 
the prophetic work of Christ in the ministry of the apostles and their successors. 
Confessional polemics played an open part in the restriction characteristic of the 
Reformed in the I7th century (cf Leidener Synopsis, loc. cit.). Since only the 
biblical prophets and apostles can be considered as administn of the Prophet 
Jesus Christ, the Ecclesia Dei rejects (repudiat) omnes traditiones quae sacro 
Codice non continentur. On this point it is to be observed that the unique dignity 
of the sacred book consists in the fact that in it and it alone we have the original 
attestation of the being and action of Jesus Christ as the presupposition of all 
further proclamation by the Church Yet there can be no question of the Church 
rejecting all traditions, its task being to test them by the standard of the 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 17 

prophetico-apostolic witness, to weigh their conformity to Scripture, which will 
not always lead to their total repudiation. The older Dutch who spoke in this 
way did not really reject all traditions themselves ; indeed, at Dort they quite 
freely added to the old some new ones. And can we truly maintain that only the 
biblical prophets and apostles are the body which has a part in the office of its 
Head ? A formally parallel question has also to be put to Roman Catholic 
dogmatics. This recognised and recognises only too well the participation of 
the Church, and therefore not merely of the prophets and apostles, in the teaching 
office of Christ. By this J. Pohle (loc. cit.) understands the following. At Pente- 
cost Christ instituted the Church as an institution for teaching the truth and 
imparted to it the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of truth. The infallibility of the Church 
and Papacy thus rests upon the prophetic ministry of Christ as the infallible 
Teacher of truth. The teaching office of the Church mediates the full and total 
truth. Beyond it there can be no spiritual or future " Johannine " Church. 
Exercising divine authority with the corresponding direct ability, it already 
possesses all the gifts most adapted to counter its enemies. This view raises the 
question whether a genuine participation of the Church in the teaching office 
of Christ can or should imply that its utterances are distinguished by an authority 
and infallibility similar to those of the Word of Jesus Christ Himself. How, as 
His body, as His earthly form of existence, did it acquire this similarity of its 
own function with His ? Even though there is this participation, why must it 
be all or nothing ? Is it not enough that it should modestly and penitently and 
teachably serve Him in the appropriate secondanness of its authority and the 
obvious and avowed fallibility of its human word ? We have also to ask how 
the assumption is reached that the body which participates in the teaching 
office of Jesus Christ is limited to the bearers of the ecclesiastical teaching office 
represented in the Papacy, being restricted to these particular members of the 
body. Is not the ministry of proclamation, as the concrete form of this participa- 
tion, the commission, the privilege and the task to be responsibly accepted and 
humbly executed by the whole community ' These Reformed and Roman 
Catholic constrictions are finely broken through in the statement of the Heidelberg 
Catechism (Qu 32) to the effect that I and not merely the prophets and apostles 
or a teaching clergy show myself to be a Christian in the fact that " by faith I 
am a member of Christ, and thus a partaker of His anointing ; in order that I 
also may confess His name," no one being either excluded or self-excluded. At 
the end of the century of orthodoxy this statement and the insight which it 
expresses do seem to have been occasionally accepted by the Reformed, as, for 
example, when we read that ex participatione unctionis all Christians are prophets 
in appropriation of the Word of God, in the study of Scripture, in the testing of 
spirits, but also in the instruction of neighbours and courageous witness (P. van 
Mastncht, Theor pract. Theol., 1698, V, 6, 26). 

A fifth and final question raised but not unequivocally answered by Calvin's 
restatement is to whom Jesus Christ the Reconciler is really speaking when He 
is also the Revealer Calvin's unhesitating answer in Qu. 39 of his Catechism 
is that as the sovereign Messenger of God He addresses Himself to the world. 
Polanus also spoke of His proclamation to the world (loc. ctt.), and in the same 
sense J. Wolleb spoke of totus terrarum orbis (loc. cit., 19, 6). The same teaching 
is found in the Cat Romanus (loc. cit.) : emus doctrina orbis terrarum Patris 
coelestts cogmtionem accepit, as also in the Theol. did. pol. (1685) of the Lutheran 
Quenstedt (III, c. 3, 2, sect i, th. 10), where he says that it is addressed to omnes 
et singulos homines, nemine excluso, and again in th. 13, where he tells us that 
what is at issue is omnium hominum ad coelestis ventatis agnitionem perductio. 
Rather strangely, in Qu. 44 of his Catechism Calvin also describes Christ as 
merely the Teacher and Master of His own people. In Wolleb, too, the circle 
of those instructed by Him is restricted to the electi (I, 17, 9), and the Leidener 
Synopsis states emphatically that His Word is addressed only to " His people " 



i8 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

(26, 39). The common rule of the Reformed is to speak indefinitely of " us " 
as those with whom Jesus Christ has dealings in His prophetic Word. The 
question is thus posed which of the two understandings we are to follow. Now 
obviously they are not mutually exclusive as such. We should be happy to 
think that what is meant is that the Word of Christ applies to " us " the elect, 
the people of God, as the community of witnesses summoned to proclaim it 
in the world. But unfortunately this was quite definitely not the meaning of 
our fathers when in respect of the relationship of the Prophet Jesus Christ to the 
world they fairly quickly showed themselves to have such strange reservations. 
They rightly maintained (e.g., Polanus, VI, 29) that by the prophecy of Christ 
there is to be understood not merely the external promulgatio ventatis dwinae 
but also the interna unctio cordium per Spintum sanctum. This being the case, 
their doctrine of double predestination necessarily acted as a barrier between 
the people of God, as the elect and exclusive recipients of the witness of the 
Spirit, and the world. As Christ did not die for all men, in the full sense His 
Word does not go out to all but only to " us " the elect. As Prophet, too, Christ 
is and acts only intra muros. If this conception had to be accepted, the doctrine 
of His third office could only end m a blind alley. If we take seriously the fact 
that the officium mediatonum of Jesus Christ, the act of reconciliation accomplished 
in Him, has this third dimension, then in this connexion, too, we must consider 
that in sending Him God loved the world and that in Him He has reconciled 
the world to Himself, so that the specific history of those who hear the voice of 
the Good Shepherd as distinct from others cannot be the final end of His prophetic 
work, but can be fulfilled only in the special existence and history of the people 
of God, i.e., in what Paul calls in 2 Cor. 5 18 the StaxWa rfjs KaraAAayifc. Jesus 
Christ speaks to this people with the intention and commission that it for its 
part should speak to the world, that it should be His messenger within it. In 
fact, Calvin and his disciples were so hampered by their fatal dogma that they 
were no longer or not yet able to perceive this. But it is comforting and in- 
structive to say that m impulse at least they obviously show signs of looking m 
this direction. 

To ask these questions is not to belittle the significance of this powerful 
attempt at dogmatic reconstruction which was so influential for contemporary 
theology, nor to evade the debt of gratitude which we owe to Calvin in particular. 
There can be no question of trying to resurrect the older doctrine of the munus 
Chnsti propheticum. Its limitations are obvious, and at all the points mentioned 
we must carefully and respectfully but boldly and resolutely transcend them. 
Yet the biblical and then the material considerations with which we have opened 
this introductory sub-section have shown us that the doctrine of the munus 
propheticum, whatever we may think of the form in which it was presented and 
asserted, does at least point us to an element in the event of reconciliation which 
demands individual treatment. It is thus necessary, and will be well worth 
while, freely to make the same attempt. 

We conclude this introduction with a historical consideration. Is it an accident 
that on the threshold of the modern epoch, which is new even from the stand- 
point of Christianity, the Church and theology, there should have been this 
restoration of the doctrine of the munus Chnsti propheticum ? It may well be 
that in taking up the third problem of the doctrine of reconciliation we are im- 
pelled, not merely by reasons of timeless academic accuracy, correctness and 
completeness, but by concern with a question which has been forced upon us 
by the historical development of especially the last 450 years, and which a modern 
theology cannot ignore because it is inescapably presented to it in the destinies, 
happenings and forms of the modern Church. 

From the standpoint of Christianity, the Church and theology, the centuries 
since the Renaissance and the accompanying Reformation have been and are 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation ig 

a penod of deep shadow. To be sure, the shadow is no greater than that of later 
antiquity and the Dark and Middle Ages, but it is of a different kind. It must 
certainly be seen and said that the new element in the modern period, and 
therefore the distinctive characteristic of the shadow now cast over the whole 
sphere of Christianity, the Church and theology, did not become visible and 
effective at a single stroke at the beginning of the i6th century. Intimations of 
many kinds were not lacking in the later and even the earlier Middle Ages. 
But the modern epoch is distinguished from those which precede by the fact 
that certain tendencies which were previously latent, isolated and in the main 
suppressed have now become increasingly patent, general and dominating. To 
what do we refer ? To take one example, the Church in the modern period has 
slowly but relentlessly lost its position in the world in the form in which it could 
previously enjoy it. Perhaps this is because, quite apart from the schism between 
East and West, in the i6th century it split up even in the West into four different 
groupings and later into hundreds. Perhaps it is because from the i6th century 
onwards ostensibly Christian Europe has been brought into increasingly direct 
contact with the far more numerous non-Christian multitudes of the far West 
and East, and has found its faith set in co-existence with a plenitude of alien 
religions, so that not only is the self-evident absoluteness of its Christianity 
brought under suspicion, but it is subjected to the temptation of recalling pagan 
possibilities not long since and not very radically discarded. Perhaps it is because 
and this is usually regarded as the first impulse from the beginning of the 
1 6th century, partly under the influence of the rediscovery of ancient Greece, 
partly under that of the astonishing advances in natural and historical science, 
and above all under that of technology, it has itself begun to fashion a human 
awareness and self-understanding based on the autonomy of general reason and 
even of the individual More and more the Church has come up against the self- 
consciousness of modern national and regional powers with a totally new claim 
to sovereignty, against a modern society recognising and proclaiming its own 
laws and following its own aspirations, against a modern philosophy, science, 
literature, art and economics which not only maintain their own particular 
freedoms and rights against it but silently exercise them without asking any 
questions. Under the influence and pressure of all these elements and factors 
in the outside world it has found itself, first imperceptibly and then more and 
more obviously, thrust aside and pushed into a corner or ghetto. To the more 
or less educated 6hte it has become more and more of an offence, or folly, or at 
any rate an object of mildly tolerant indifference. And to a large extent it has 
been completely lost to sight by the masses, externally as well as internally. 
If the consciousness of its irresistibly dwindling or long since forfeited position 
of religious, spiritual, moral and political power still lingers on in public life, it 
is either in the form of dangerous recollections of abuses of this power horrific 
pictures which provide easy justification both for a pathetic hostility to the 
Church and an increasing flight from it or in the clever use which remaining 
reactionary movements in the state or society are still, and sometimes in quite 
new ways, able to make of it, to the great hurt of its own cause. And the Church 
itself seems gradually to have been narrowed down to a difficult choice. It might 
try to fight for the maintenance or restoration of its vanishing respect and in- 
fluence with more or less suitable weapons, often in a blind and unfortunate 
alliance with those reactionary forces. Or it might take the way obviously 
suggested by these developments and retreat to the reservations of a self-satisfy- 
ing religiosity, whether in the form of the varied practice of individual piety, 
renewed or newly discovered liturgies, or dogmatic castles in the air. Or it 
might accept the increasing secularism on an optimistic interpretation, taking 
it up into its own self-understanding, working away so critically at the Bible, 
tradition and the creeds as to appear to be in harmony with the progressive spirit 
of the age, to justify modern man and to offer to the adult world a suitably 



20 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

adult form of Christianity, thus exposing all the more obviously and palpably the 
alienation of the life of modern man from that of the Church and vice versa. 
The outbursts of lamentation or scorn which this situation has almost continu- 
ously evoked from Christians and non-Christians since the zyth century are 
only too familiar. Each generation has repeated them as if it were the first to 
discover the great diastasis which is their theme. We shall refrain from adding 
fresh strophes. But we must soberly face up to the facts. The modern period 
is in fact the period of Church history upon which the shadow of this diastasis 
lies. 

The only thing is that we must not overlook another feature of the situation. 
It is not at all the case that in these last centuries Christianity has found itself 
only in the state of this constriction and the execution of these measures of 
defence, or insulations, or compromises, or apparent truces. There are gloomy 
and sceptical as well as naive and sanguine falsifications of history, and we should 
be guilty of such if we were to overlook the fact that most paradoxically the 
modern period has also seen an original and spontaneous penetration of the 
world by the Christian community unparalleled in any of the vaunted or criticised 
periods which precede it. Nor can this process be facilely compared to the 
despairing sally or counter-attack of a hopelessly beleaguered garrison, and thus 
explained as one of the phenomena of constriction. On the contrary, the very 
period when Christianity has been subject to the constriction, and its situation 
has often enough been very like that of a closely invested fortress, has also been 
the scene of an awakening which has not been dictated by its enemies, which 
has been highly original, in which it has shown a new awareness, hardly paralleled 
since the first centuries, of its commission to the world and mission within it, 
and in which it has stirred itself in the most different forms to do justice to it. 
How curious it is that so learned and perspicacious a man as E. Hirsch, in his 
depiction of recent Evangelical theology, should have succeeded in missing 
altogether this aspect of the matter and representing it as the history of an 
unbroken retreat into a kind of Indian reservation ! 

That Christianity has to say to the world around something strange, unknown 
and supremely necessary ; that it has to pass on to it a message , that it is not 
there for itself alone but has the responsibility towards those without of con- 
fronting them with the Gospel in order that they may participate in the salvation 
which it thinks or is certain that it has itself ; that it owes it to the Lord in 
whom it in some sense believes, and whom it well or badly confesses, to attest 
Him to the forces which rule this aeon, all this was a concept which did to some 
degree move the Christian Middle Ages but was for the most part marginal. 
There was little room for it in practice, for the mediaeval Church, confined to 
Western and Central Europe, lived with the surrounding world in the happy 
illusion that it constituted a corpus chnstianum or Christian world, and could 
have very little awareness of the existence of a non-Christian world, and there- 
fore of a genuine encounter of the Gospel and man. Since all those in known 
proximity were supposedly within, there could not really be any who were 
without. It is true that on the southern and eastern borders of this geographical, 
political and spiritual kingdom, account had to be taken of Islam standing threat- 
eningly ante portas, but this problem was easily settled by leaving the border 
skirmishes ex officio to the mendicant orders, when they were not undertaken 
with the sword. Again, if pagan elements still lived on in the ostensibly 
Christian European under the cover and guarantee of the sacramental institu- 
tion, e.g., in the actuality of his pnvate or public life and his conception of right 
and wrong, which were hardly or not at all affected by the Gospel, or in the 
practical atheism of both great and small, both rulers and the masses ruled by 
them, cheap compensations could always be found in persecuting the Albigenses 
and sporadically the Jews. Even in its own sphere, in its cultus and organisation, 
in its financial and territorial economy, in its very teaching and preaching and 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 21 

to the very core of its noblest mysticism, did not the Church itself live by in- 
numerable compromises in which the laws and customs of the old aeon main- 
tained an accepted balance against the new aeon of the Jesus Chnst venerated 
in the sacrament of the altar ? Was not the whole idea and practice of the 
corpus chnstianum that of this static counterpoise ? We cannot deny that in 
its own way mediaeval Christianity did believe in the reconciliation of the world 
with God and therefore in Jesus Christ as its Lord. But in what sense did it 
do so when it could acquiesce in this counterpoise and accept the continuance 
and existence of the sacred and secular orders and separations as then 
established ? 

The diastasts between the Church and the world inaugurated or revealed with 
the dawn of the modern age has put an end to this state of balance. The outward 
aspect of the process has been the emancipation of the world from the Church 
in a whole series of gentle or more violent but ever-increasing disruptions in 
which the secular world has discovered or rediscovered secularism and success- 
fully attempted to use it, thus turning its back on the Church with which it had 
contracted that doubtful union in the Middle Ages. It found that it could do 
this ; that it was not committed to the Church in any deep sense ; that it had 
not really adopted the cause which it represented or the Gospel which it preached. 
What human hands had built, they could pull down again. But this is not the 
only aspect of the matter. For in the developing diastasis inaugurated in the 
1 6th century the Church was not merely an object which was released from that 
union and forced out of the position of power previously held by it. As this 
took place, it made its own counter-movement of a very different and positive 
character, not repaying in kind the rejection, indifference or hostility which it 
met with, but making a radically new approach to the world, not on the illusory 
basis of the assumption that it formed a unity or totality with it, but on that of 
the assumption that it belonged to it in its antithesis to it, and that in its very 
distinction it could not meet it with indifference or hostility but only with the 
deepest solidarity and commitment. It is a remarkable coincidence that at 
the very time and in the very situation when the secular world began to free 
itself from the Church, the Church began, not to free itself from, but to be un- 
mistakeably free for the secular world, namely, free for the service to its own cause 
within the secular world which for so long it had for the most part neglected in 
pursuit of its own fantasies. Which came first, and which followed ? May it 
be that the state, society, culture, the modern man, had first to escape that 
connexion in order that the Church should finally be set at the distance from the 
secular world which it needs to perform the service to its own cause within the 
secular world, and which it so critically lacked in the Middle Ages ? Had the 
world first to become mature in order that in its own way the Church should 
become mature m a positive sense, achieving an awareness of its own mission 
in the antithesis and the capacity for its responsible discharge ? For our own 
purpose, however, we need not disentangle what took place, and still takes 
place, hominum confusion* , and what Dei provtdentia. It is enough that in these 
centuries when an unprofitable union with the world has been broken a materially 
profitable encounter with the world has been achieved. In and with the con- 
striction, and in spite of all the errors of which it has been guilty in what has 
transpired, the Church's mainly static being and attitude to the outside world 
has been changed into a dynamic. Certainly, there have been definite limitations 
in its own insight, volition and achievement. But the fact and the inner necessity 
of this transformation can be no more ignored than the more striking events 
which have come upon it during this period m the form of painful rejections, 
repulsions and humiliations. 

In and with the beginning of the great renaissance of paganism, it took 
place (i) that, very definitely in certain places, although not universally, the 
Church again took on the form of a Church of the Word. That is, it took on the 



22 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

form of a Church reformed both by and for the Word of God , of a confessing 
Church, i e , of a Church confessing Jesus Christ and the knowledge of Jesus 
Christ, and doing this directly and indirectly before civil rulers and in face of the 
great and very greatest secular authorities , of a Church fearlessly publicising 
throughout Europe the name and kingdom and will of its Lord. Et loquebar de 
testimonns tuis in conspectu regum et non confundebar, was quoted from Ps 119** 
on the title page of the Augsburg Confession in a wholly new consciousness of 
Christian duty and therefore a wholly new self-consciousness. It was the weak 
voice of Melanchthon which was heard in this document. But it sounded out 
loud and clear. Nor was it meant to be the mere expression of human caprice , 
it rested on the basis of the new outgoing of the Gospel itself which Luther 
so often described as the meaning, justification and glory of his work. What 
gave a distinctive impetus to the whole i6th century Reformation both in its 
origins and development was that at least the responsible champions of that 
part of Christianity associated with it believed that they could and should address 
their contemporaries on the basis of a prior address to themselves by the Lord of 
the Church and the world as newly recognised in His sovereignty, being free 
both in face of them but also on their behalf as those who were themselves made 
free, i.e., free for preaching and teaching. They had something to say to them 
as the Bible almost spontaneously opened up before them and spoke to them 
concerning the justification and sanctification of sinful man and the reconciliation 
of the world with God as it had been accomplished in Jesus Christ, thus claiming 
the ministry of their lips to challenge accepted Christianity and the supposed 
Christian West with enlightening, renewing, penetrating and transforming force, 
demanding and creating a new being in and with Christ This was how the 
Reformation spoke to European man at the very time when he was in process 
of awakening to a new awareness of his seculanty Where had it ever been seen 
or said or felt or experienced or expressed to this degree, not merely in the Middle 
Ages but even in the early Church, that everything depends wholly and utterly 
upon the Word which goes out from the God who acts graciously towards man 
in Jesus Christ and which is received, appropriated, proclaimed and heard as 
such, that this Word alone is comfort, direction, help and strength and hope in 
life and death, whether for individuals or their common life ? The modern 
man was already born, but he was still sleeping in his cradle, when this took place 
in the Reformation. And for all the confusion in the later development or failure 
of the Reformation, the man who then arose was not left to his own devices 
but was confronted by a witness which, whether he realised it or not, transcended 
his whole movement of revolt and remained in spite of all the resentment or 
accusation which led him to oppose or ignore the Church, because, far from 
being affected by this, it posed and answered the question which, whether he liked 
it or not, was necessarily put to him, the great hero of this emancipation and 
secularisation. The remarkable penetration effected at the Reformation has 
never been reversed. The existence of a community of the Word cannot be 
erased even in the history of the modern world, whether by its contradiction or 
silence, or by the weakness, ineptitude, disunity, corruption or baseness of its 
representatives. 

No less noteworthy is (2) the fact tnat, in movements which were isolated 
and slow at first but have since become more rapid and general, the new age of 
apparent Chnstian regression has become an age of Christian missions unparalleled 
since the days of the apostles and the time of the christiamsation of Europe 
(which extended well into the Middle Ages in the North and East). 

The beginnings of new missionary activity are not .to be traced to the Reform- 
ation itself, but to a much earlier epoch in the mediaeval Church. They coincided 
with the frontier struggles against Islam to which we have already alluded, and 
were conducted by the institutionally commissioned and prepared Franciscans 
an4 Dominicans jn campaigns which found their literary result in works like the 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 23 

Summa contra gentiles of Thomas Aquinas. In practice some of the representa- 
tives of the movement carried it far beyond the immediate front of " infidels," 
for at the time of Mongol dominion in China in 1307 there had been established 
in Peking under John of Monte Corvino a Catholic diocese of 30,000 souls, 
although, like the flourishing Nestorian foundation of the 8th century, this 
disappeared in a comparatively short space of time with the repulse of the 
Mongols. The discoveries and conquests of the later I5th and early i6th centuries 
summoned the mendicants to fresh endeavour They followed the Portuguese 
to West Africa and the East Indies, and the Spanish to the West Indies, Mexico 
and South America. Much might be said about the doubtful nature of their 
spirit and methods in these enterprises. But the simple and spontaneous way 
in which they engaged m them calls for notice The resumption of the Moham- 
medan mission was the original intention behind the foundation of a new order 
by Ignatius Loyola, though it did not find practical realisation. But Francis 
Xavier (1509-1552) belonged to the original circle, and what was undoubtedly 
in its way a genuine missionary impulse and enthusiasm carried him beyond 
India, Ceylon and the Celebes to Japan (1549), where his followers not only 
succeeded in winning 600,000 souls for the Church, but brought the Church to 
political power after the western fashion, even introducing the Inquisition 
and engaging in organised persecutions of Buddhists, until a radically new 
chapter opened in the middle of the iyth century In the ensuing reaction, this 
Japanese Church produced some staunch martyrs, and remnants lingered on 
and were rediscovered around 1860. We may thus see that there was not a 
complete lack of genuine Christian substance in this early effort. Mission, as 
later taken up by other orders and after 1622 centralised in the special college 
De propaganda fide, has been and is an integrating element in the activities and 
organisation of the modern Roman Catholic Church. There are obvious objec- 
tions both to its aims on the one side (its unfortunate confusion of its own cause 
and honour and power with those of God) and its methods on the other (the 
distinctively aggressive and superficial nature of its recruitment). But more 
relevant is the fact that in the modern period, however well or badly, the Roman 
Catholic Church has also and primarily been a missionary Church, and this far 
more radically even to-day than the Protestant Churches This fact throws 
light on the inner necessity with which modern Christianity, externally attacked 
and constricted, has also engaged in an original and spontaneous outward 
movement. 

The tardiness of the Reformation Churches in this sphere has often been 
assorted and deplored. Most surprisingly, these Churches of the Word did not 
at first, or for a long time afterwards, perceive the opportunity of mission offered 
by the new discoveries and conquests. Neither on Luther nor Melanchthon, 
Zwmgh nor Calvin, did any deep impression seem to be made by the opening 
of these doors or the immediate efforts of Rome to pass through them In 
explanation, it may be pointed out that the states which accepted the Reforma- 
tion had no control of the sea-power which was the indispensable technical 
presupposition of the Roman missions. It may also be argued that the Reforma- 
tion Churches were so preoccupied with tl|e new and original content of the Word 
of God and the renewal of the Western Christianity ostensibly before them that 
in the first instance they had necessarily to stay behind as the Romans con- 
fidently launched out across the seas with their Paternoster and Ave Maria, 
their rigid identification of the Church and the kingdom of God, and their 
optimistic assurance as to the undeniable correlation of nature and grace, of the 
old man and aeon and the new. The only trouble is that, even if the time for 
missionary activity had not yet come for these or similar reasons, there was not 
even the realisation of the duty of mission. A virtue was made of necessity, and 
it was explained that the missionary command was given only to the apostles, 
and had long since been fulfilled by them. Thus the heathenism of the heathen 



24 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

was an unalterable judgment of God suspended over them on account of their 
obstinate rejection of the Gospel as previously offered to them. In any case, it 
was too late to do anything for them, since the Last Day was at hand and had 
already dawned. The chnstianisation of the heathen could now be no more 
than a civil duty of existing Christian authorities. There could be no question 
of a mission on the part of the Church. If God did wish to extend His kingdom, 
this was exclusively His own business and not that of men. An isolated and 
little known voice to the contrary is that of the Dutchman Adrian Suravia, who 
was born in 1531 and died in 1613 as Dean of Westminster. In a work on the 
spiritual office (1590), he declared that, as the promise : " Lo, I am with you 
alway ..." applies not merely to the apostles but to all the disciples of Jesus, 
so, too, does the command : " Go ye into all the world." The apostolic preaching 
of the Gospel to the nations was only a beginning according to the possibilities 
of a single generation. In fact, there had always been continuations. Hence 
the task must be taken up again to-day, not arbitrarily by individuals, but with 
all the authority of the Church. Suravia was at once and energetically countered 
by the greatest theological authorities of his day, including Theodore Beza 
among the Calvinists and J. Gerhard among the Lutherans, and in the main 
the older Protestant orthodoxy accepted their express repudiation of any out- 
standing missionary obligation. No impression was made on them by the 
charge of the Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmme that the Protestant could not be the 
true Church because it did not engage in any missionary endeavour. Indeed, 
the bold answer was made that the spreading of Christianity among all peoples 
is not an essential mark of the Church which in Rev. i2 6 is compared to the 
woman fleeing into the wilderness. The conversion of Roman Catholics to the 
Gospel is basically a conversion of heathen. In any case, the teacher must stay 
by the congregation entrusted to him : " Feed the flock of Christ which is among 
you " (i Pet. 5 a ). Previously the command was given to go into all the world, 
but now it is to stay where God has put us. Individual voices in favour of 
missions, such as those of G. Cahxt, J. Duraeus, P. Spener and C. Scnver, 
were not able to break through this obduracy even by the end of the iyth century. 
Even Lord Justinian von Weltz was a voice in the wilderness when in three 
pamphlets (1664-1666) he called for the formation " of a separate society by 
which with divine help our evangelical religion might be propagated." So, too, 
was Leibniz, who discussed the Jesuit mission to China and at whose instigation 
" the propagation of the true faith " was accepted as an aim, with no practical 
consequences, in the statutes of the Berlin Academy of Sciences (1700). By 
this time, certainly, the theory of the missionary duty of Christian colonial 
authorities had led to some measure of practical action. One such authority 
was the Dutch East India Company, which for a time commissioned, employed 
and supported some Dutch theologians (mostly trained in Leiden) in the Far 
East, unfortunately with a view to mass conversions on the Roman pattern 
Naturally, this was not what was needed, and it was perhaps more sincere and 
objectively better that the English East India Company remained quite in- 
different and did not include in its programme enterprises of this nature In 
the sphere of the corresponding attempts of the Pilgrim Fathers to do missionary 
work among the North American Indians, honourable mention is deserved by 
the far deeper work of John Eliot, which unfortunately was almost completely 
destroyed in the confusion of the Red Indian wars. It awakened interest in the 
home country and at the turn of the century provided the impulse for the forma- 
tion of such societies as the S.P.C.K. and the S.P.G., concerning whose success 
it is difficult to say anything very significant. Royal missionaries they were 
really German Pietists were also sent out by Denmark into the West Indian 
colonies. And m connexion with a royal Danish chartered company Pastor 
Hans Egede began work in Greenland, working patiently for 15 years with very 
little result. 



I. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 25 

Pietism, in the shape given it by Hermann Francke in Halle rather than 
Philipp Spener, constituted the stage in the progress of the Evangelical Church 
in which there took place a more general awakening to missionary duty and the 
acceptance of missionary action as essential to its very life and being. The 
limitations of the missionary conceptions and practice of the Pietists need not 
concern us What matters is the undoubted fact that the introduction and 
form of Evangelical world mission as we now know it may be attributed to the 
influence of Pietism. In face of every kind of opposition, Francke was the first 
to see and say that Evangelical Christianity as such must be the bearer of mission, 
to spread abroad knowledge and understanding by means of a periodical, and 
finally in his orphanage to prepare consecrated workers for missionary service. 
Yet the true genius of this Evangelical awakening was not that of Francke and 
Pietism in the narrower sense, but of Count Zinzendorf and his community. 
By the time of his death, their missionary achievement surpassed everything 
previously done by Protestantism for the proclamation of the Gospel among the 
heathen, and in proportion to its membership his community is still unrivalled 
in this field This is connected with the fact that Zinzendorf 's personal Christi- 
anity, for him identical with his love for Jesus Christ, coincided as such from the 
very first with his irresistible urge to be the Saviour's witness to each and every 
man and to the whole world. The basic thing which had been spoken by Suravia, 
Lord von Weltz and Francke was lived out by Zinzendorf. In and with his one 
" passion " there was directly proscribed for him his action, the way of the 
Gospel to far and near. As and because he wanted to belong to the One who 
died for him and for all men, he could not and would not be in debt to any as 
His messenger This was not merely his central but his one and only missionary 
motive And as he was able to implant it in others, his community, which he 
had never envisaged or established as a private community but as an oecumene 
in nuce, became in some sense radically and essentially a missionary Church 
to a degree not yet reached or excelled by any other in the Evangelical sphere. 
At the same time, in relation to feeling stirred up by the discovery of mis- 
government and mismanagement by the East India Company, the last decade 
saw the foundation in England of three missionary societies in the true modern 
sense Again the first and decisive impulse came from a non-theologian, the 
cobbler and later Baptist preacher, William Carey (1761-1834). When in con- 
sequence of the awakening at the beginning of the igth century there followed 
a kind of thaw on the Continent, in the first instance it was to these societies 
that the corresponding associations (e g., the mission school founded at Basle 
1^1815) attached themselves, though sooner or later they constituted them- 
selves independent organs of mission. There then followed, not only within all 
the great Evangelical denominations in Great Britain, North America, Holland, 
Germany, France and Scandinavia, but also m the colonial Churches, a sudden 
and irresistible growth of free associations whose fulness corresponds to the 
number of countries and ecclesiastical groupings and whose achievements in the 
noble (and sometimes not so noble) competition of the last 150 years have spread 
with more or less intensity over all parts of the earth. 

Our present concern is not with their methods and successes, their strength 
and weakness, the price which they have had to pay for instruction or the 
particularly severe problems with which they are now confronted. Nor can 
we do more than lightly touch on the question whether the missionary cause 
should continue to be prosecuted by freely constituted societies and associations 
with the Churches or whether it should be incorporated into the regular ministry 
of the organised Churches as their own affair (as, for example, in Scotland). 
Good reasons have been advanced on both sides, but can this still be done in the 
future or will a decision have to be reached ? What we wish to emphasise at 
the moment is simply that it was not in the " good old days " of classical Protes- 
tantism, but in the time of its regrettable, or not so regrettable, dissolution, 



26 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

i e., m the igth century, which was also the time when modern secularism 
reached its supreme and most conscious maturity, that Evangelical Christianity 
of all streams could not and would not stop at the position of the Reformers, 
but saw and accepted with remarkable unanimity its task as a Church of the 
living and even geographically outreachmg Word, awakening and bestirring 
itself, even if only in the words and actions and prayers of free associations of 
innumerable individual Christians, to the serious realisation and fulfilment of 
its mission to the heathen. It is a sufficiently surprising and important statement 
that this is a period when in part at least the Church has won through to the 
venture of challenging the might of heathenism with the preaching of the Gospel 
instead of being influenced and intimidated by it. It has done this in face of 
all the difficulties in which it has been entangled in the home countries It has 
done it at a time when what took place in the home countries, in the so-called 
Christian West, e.g , wars and world wars, could offer the heathen world no very 
convincing example. It has done it even though in the attitude and conduct of 
nominally Christian Europeans and Americans in Africa and Asia it has usually 
had to expect and experience vexatious hindrance instead of help. It has done 
it in spite of the fact that it has been severely hampered and compromised and 
even tempted by the proximity and conjunction of the political and economic 
colonialism in which it has had to do its work for better or for worse, not to 
speak of its own confessional division and disunity. It has done it in conflict 
with continual and virulent prejudices in its own ranks. It has done it, as all 
keen-sighted friends of missionary work are well aware, with very little pomp 
or human impressiveness It has done it in spite of all probability. But it has 
actually done it This fact, and the way in which it did it, can be narrated and 
described. But, so far as I can see, no adequate explanation can ever be given 
in purely historical terms We can only say that any picture of modern Christi- 
anity is incomplete in which it is not made evident that finally and " better 
late than never " it has ventured in all its weakness to do this. 

In the modern period again (3) there has been a new Christian awakening 
and stirring in relation to what might be called internal paganism, namely, 
theoretical and practical polytheism, pantheism, atheism or simple mdifferentism 
within what is regarded as Christian society. We have noted already that within 
the framework of the previous compromise in the older Christian West there 
were many forms of this inner paganism, some blatant, some subtle and even 
very subtle, some openly recognised and some concealed, some contested in 
Church and state and some tolerated or even protected And in this respect, too, 
it was the mendicant orders who in the later Middle Ages made it their business 
to uncover and rebuke the sins of at least the lower strata of society, calling 
them to repentance and amendment To some degree, at least, they were thus 
forerunners of what was to take place in connexion with the Reformation. In 
Roman Catholicism their successors were the Capuchins among the ordinary 
people and among the more educated the Jesuits, who became the educators, 
instructors, counsellors and spiritual advisers of the higher and highest classes. 
At this point, however, we cannot say that at least the majority of Protestants 
lagged behind even momentarily. The fight against paganism in the form of a 
personal and practical renovation of life, now expected and demanded of high 
and lowly alike in recognition of the will and Law of God as understood in con- 
nexion with the Gospel, was from the very first and even in the earliest stages 
the dominating motive in the preaching, instruction, discipline, pastoral work 
and ecclesiastical politics of such men as Zwingli, Bucer and Calvin. And from 
these first beginnings the threads lead us directly to English and American 
Puritanism and indirectly to P Spener and the whole of North German Pietism, 
in which there was a turn to the praxis pietatis on the part of a Lutheranism 
previously more concerned with purity of doctrine than of life, and then in the 
1 8th century to John Wesley, whose violent onslaught on a Christianity which 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 27 

was baptised yet in no way converted, but rather in need of conversion, so deeply 
influenced the moral life of his country that we may not unjustly speak of 
" England before and after Wesley." Indeed, if we are to be quite fair, we must 
not forget the moralism of the Enlightenment, which has often been deplored 
and ridiculed and was certainly very arid, but which in its first stages was not 
for nothing a child of Pietism, and in many senous representatives was sincerely 
meant and effectively served the purposes of edification. With the coming of 
the igth century and the European awakening which first made itself felt in the 
stirring of interest in foreign missions, it was inevitable that, as the successive 
decades saw also an alienation of the masses and the educated classes from the 
Church, and their adoption of forms more visibly and palpably opposed to its 
message and belief, the motive of practical renovation of Christian life should 
again be related to its inner foundation as nourished by the Bible, prayer and 
fellowship. 

These together became the problem and programme of the so-called Inner 
Mission which in its origins in Germany is associated with the name of J. H. 
Wichern, and also of the corresponding movements, enterprises and organisations 
in other lands and even outside the great Churches, together with all their various 
offshoots for the purposes of practical service, education and evangelism. Among 
these we may mention the Deaconess Training Schools for Nurses, the interna- 
tional Y M C A , the S C M. and also the Blue Cross, in whose slogan we can see 
very clearly the unity of motives which characterises the more recent form of the 
whole movement, deliverance from the misery of slavery to drink being also the 
saving of drunkards by the grace of God and for His service. And if the organ 
of the Salvation Army is called The Warcry, this denotes the militant character 
of the whole development from Zwmgli by way of John Wesley to John Mott. 
Mention of the latter is also a reminder that there are many material and personal 
relationships between these home and foreign missions It is true that, apart 
from the early days in the Reformed sphere, the organised Churches have been 
for the most part the sphere of action rather than the subject in relation to this 
whole outburst, the initiative being taken in the main by voluntary individuals 
and groups Here again the question may be raised whether it is healthy that 
this should continue to be the case. But again the important thing is the fact 
that this offensive was mounted at the very beginning of the modern period, 
and that in a plenitude of different forms it has continued nght into our own 
time 

A definite limitation is characteristic of all the movements to which we have 
alluded The inner paganism envisaged by them is always the more or less 
sharply defined alienation from God in the personal life of individuals living in a 
Christian environment. Their consistent aim has thus been the inward and out- 
ward conversion of these individuals, their awakening to faith and the life of 
faith, their invitation and introduction into a new and active participation in 
the fellowship of the Church or this or that Christian organisation, in its confes- 
sion, service and activity But in all these centuries, apart from a few modest 
beginnings at the end of the igth and then in our own century, the awakening 
and upsurgence have never reached the point where Evangelical Christianity 
has found itself summoned to wrestle with the paganism of the old and new 
institutions in the sphere and under the pressure and compulsion of which the 
life of converted or unconverted Christians or of men generally has had to be 
lived in every age. What are the forces and powers to whose dominion this 
sphere owes its existence, essence and form ? By what spirit are the existing 
relationships really determined in which individuals live in such godlessness 
and within which they are to be called to faith in God and obedience towards 
Him ? What can and must the existence of these relationships signify for them ? 
Whether or not they try to be serious Christians, are they perhaps sinful and 
guilty in adapting themselves to these relationships, and even maintaining 



28 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

them, as if they were rigidly ordained ? These are the questions which were 
not asked in these movements, or which began to be asked only when matters 
had been brought to a head from a very different side. The rule was and very 
largely is even to-day that the institutions and relationships, the orders and 
disorders, within which individuals have to exist, are presupposed as given, and 
we have simply to attempt and achieve the best possible in these given circum- 
stances. Indeed, all the movements mentioned could give incidental, and 
sometimes far more than incidental, recognition and approval to the existing 
or emerging orders and disorders of the period, even lending them their direct 
or indirect support. Thus the Reformers and their successors did not lay a finger 
on the traditional patriarchalism of family life, but tacitly and even vocally 
accepted it with all its curiosities and severities. Again, the Reformed as well 
as the Lutheran churchmen of the i6th and iyth centuries accepted and supported 
the older form of authoritarian state, which even when it was republican was not 
in any sense a democracy, regarding it as not merely given but divinely given, 
with all its strange privileges and subjections, until at last it met its well-merited 
end under the pressure of very different forces. And then, of course, their sons 
quite self-evidently adapted themselves to the newer political Liberalism. Again, 
Calvimsts were not only able to contemplate, without batting an eyelash, the 
rise of capitalism and the modern industrialism directed and characterised by 
it, but they proved to be its most determined and audacious and, as it then 
seemed, progressive promoters, either not considering the question of theocracy 
in this field or finding to it an answer favourable to these new possibilities. Again, 
witchhunts and the slave trade and slavery could become established as institu- 
tions, and the whole penal code could become notoriously more barbaric in the 
1 7th century than it had been in the Middle Ages, and it was a long, long time 
before Christianity found any objection in its own sphere to these forms of pagan- 
ism, or considered renovation of life in connexion with these general relationships, 
and then for the most part only when others had already taken the lead, as 
later in the emancipation of women with its supposed encroachment on Christian 
conviction. And certainly little attention has been paid in our own day to the 
meaning or madness of the modern national and omnicompetent state, or the 
right or wrong of war, or the basic condemnation of colonialism (in spite of 
Christian experience on the mission fields). It is true enough that in connexion 
with the whole movement to which we refer there has been a remarkable develop- 
ment of Christian philanthropy on a wide front, so that in individual cases, and 
even assuming the continuance of general political, social and economic relation- 
ships, countless tears have been dned and wounds healed, and much necessary 
help has been offered and given, during these centuries. But when it has been 
a matter of challenging the dominant orders and disorders, apart from a few 
eccentrics Pietism and Methodism, the Moravians, the Inner Mission and the 
Enlightenment, have all acted as if they could no longer have any force as light 
or salt in this respect, calling a halt and usually leaving it to the children of the 
world to take up the question of renewal on this level, and only plucking up 
courage to follow them to some extent at a later date, instead of stimulating 
and preceding them as they could and should, and as a man like Heinrich Pesta- 
lozzi actually did. In the early days of the modern era it looked for a moment 
as though things might be different. We cannot but admit that in this respect, 
for all the shortwmdedness, over-haste and general weakness of their teaching 
and practical efforts, the Anabaptists and Spirituals and so-called Enthusiasts 
of the Reformation period saw much more clearly than the Reformers them- 
selves, being unwilling merely to accept the validity of existing relationships 
but trying to test them in the light of the Gospel. Were they altogether wrong 
when they thought that Luther had been moving in the same direction in his 
1520 writings ? But in the years which followed, and definitively in 1525, 
Luther was moved by his powerful concern lest Evangelical preaching should 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 29 

be corrupted by the admixture of secular hopes and aspirations, by his deep 
aversion to anything even remotely suggesting revolution, and by his conviction 
as to the imminence of the Last Day, to call a halt to this aspect and move off in 
a very different direction. And when Anabaptism itself was segregated and 
suppressed in other reforming territories, both externally by the political author- 
ities and internally by the Evangelical congregations, the die was cast, and for 
generations Evangelical Christianity was condemned to lag behind the wiser 
and more flexible of the children of the world in this field, as behind the Roman 
Catholics in that of foreign missions. Is there any comfort in the fact that in 
the last resort it was unrealised Christian impulses and indirect outworkings of 
the Gospel which came to active expression in all these various spheres, even in 
reforms inspired and informed by purely secular and humanistic influences ? 
This may well be so. But if it is, surely it is all the more puzzling that it should 
be blatant non-Christians, men who were not interested in Christian faith and 
its confession, or who misunderstood or were even inimical to it, who provided 
the soil in which these impulses fell and flourished, whereas Christians them- 
selves for a long time did not seem to receive them, and even when they did find 
a place for them, did so only tardily and with great hesitation. We are not for 
a moment questioning the genuineness and power of the upsurgence effected 
within this limitation But we must certainly recognise that it took place only 
within this limitation. 

And even in relation to events in the latter part of the igth and the first 
part of our own century, to which we must now turn, it is only with great qualific- 
ations that we can say that this limitation has been transcended, i.e., that in 
addition to the first attempts at the inner and outer chnstiamsation of individual 
Christian pagans there has been any primarily and spontaneously Christian altera- 
tion of general relationships achieved in the light of the Gospel. Certainly, we 
must not overlook or minimise the various forms of Christian Social work 
attempted by such men as Adolf Stoecker and Fnednch Naumann under the 
original inspiration of Wichern and the Inner Mission. Above all, we must 
recognise the continuing impact of the Religious Social movement which was 
stimulated by the preaching of the younger C Blumhardt concerning the kingdom 
of God, which found in Hermann Kutter and Leonhard Ragaz its most important 
leaders and teachers, and which unfortunately reflects m its name the terminology 
of the theology of the day. Nor can we ignore the different Christian peace 
movements of our age, nor the resistance in the German Churches to the National 
Socialist paganism widely proclaimed and disseminated among them in the 
thirties. In connexion with all these movements and trends there has been 
much new reflection on the relevance of Old and New Testament prophecy, 
much sharp and even bitter and perhaps exaggerated and therefore unjust 
criticism of a complacent Church and all previous Christian thinking and conduct, 
much forceful preaching of political and social repentance, and in detail much 
bold striving for practical action From all kinds of new angles there has been 
revealed, not merely the godlessness and evil of general orders and disorders, 
but the existence of a public and institutional as well as a private and individual 
paganism in all kinds of previous Christian activities such as had never before 
been suspected, let alone made the subject of serious concern or attack. The 
problem of Christian renovation, and therefore of wrestling with the social 
principles and powers and forces which rule the life of Christian and non-Christian 
alike, was now posed in all its rigour. The tasks set for Christianity in this 
direction were first indicated in powerful sermons and then studied and form- 
ulated with greater precision. Nor can we say that all this new work has been 
futile. It has shocked and stimulated the Christian world in many different 
ways. The shattering events of the two world wars have caused slogans which 
it then sought and found, and which were formerly heard and accepted by 
comparatively few, to become part of the common substance of Christian thought 



30 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

and utterance. The Ecumenical Conferences from Stockholm to Evanston have 
appropriated them. Where to-day do we not read of the sovereignty of God 
and His command over all the departments of human life, of the social message 
of the Gospel, of the responsibility of Christians and the duty of the Church to 
keep watch in state and society, of the fulfilment of the Church's confession in 
confessional political action etc. ? What fifty years ago was spoken or more 
often shouted in the ear, is now proclaimed from the house-tops, and rightly so. 
Yet we should be wise not to maintain too rashly that to-day Christianity is 
actually transcending that limitation, or has already done so. Rather we do 
well modestly to admit that on the Christian side it is a matter of subsequently 
discovering, making known, bringing to the awareness of Christianity and holding 
out to it as an example, the Christian significance or impulse of certain more or 
less purely humanistic, a-Christian or even anti-Christian uprisings such as 
Socialism. Awakened, unsettled and instructed by these alien uprisings, 
Christians have maintained that from the standpoint of the active revelation 
of God attested in the Bible there are far more comprehensive things to be said 
concerning the peace on earth promised in the Christmas message, or the external 
as well as internal peace, freedom and righteousness here and now held out to 
man, than was realised along those older lines or even m the Inner Mission and 
related movements ; and far better and more radical things than those repre- 
sented and practised by the non-Christian bearers of this Christian impulse 
The point is that the new turning was not primarily and spontaneously Christian 
in its origins, but has only become such. Furthermore, it is still an open question 
how far even in its more modern developments it has really made its way in 
Christianity. In spite of Amsterdam and Evanston, and the loud shouting of 
slogans and catch-words, is there not even yet a great and compact Christianity 
or Christendom which is still asleep in this respect, or at very best awake and 
stirred only on the older individualistic lines ? Again, even to the extent that 
we see the necessity of the new turning, are we really clear that in making it 
there can be no question of dropping the concern of the older movement and the 
Inner Mission, i e , the problem and problems of the individual, but rather of 
really taking them up in the greater context, doing the one but not leaving the 
other undone ? It can lead only to fresh disillusionment if in face of secular 
unbelief and evil the Christian task is not seen and tackled in its unity and 
totality, i e , not merely in respect of the relationships but also of the individual 
and his personal conduct as it creates and confirms the relationships. Again, 
we are only at the very beginning in respect of the delimitation of what has 
to be represented in state and society from the standpoint of the Gospel and 
command of God as distinct from the originally quite different tendencies to 
which we have alluded, i.e., in respect of the genuine theological establishment 
of the relevant Christian word for relationships and events In this field strong 
notes will not suffice for long if they are not also pure notes sounded with some 
degree of obvious if free unanimity Again, it must be clearly seen that in this 
whole movement there can be no question of a reconstitution of the mediaeval 
domination of the Church or its clergy over state and society, but that in the 
strictest sense the community must stand by its witness and deliver its message 
both to individuals and also to state and society. The Evangelical Church must 
avoid clericalist hankerings and aspirations with particular stringency at those 
points where in the whole process it finds itself in a certain proximity and com- 
munity of interest with the Church of Rome. Finally, we must not fail to see 
that the upsurgence in this direction is primarily a movement within the Church 
and Chnstian circles and that it has hardly yet gone beyond the stage of serious 
reflection and lively debate. What those who are trying to be serious Christians 
think and say in this respect has certainly led on occasion to positive and fruitful 
contacts between within and without. But so far it cannot be maintained in 
any general sense that the many true and important things said and thought 



I. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 31 

along these lines have produced real Christian actions transcending the limita- 
tions, as the older Reformed, Pietism, Methodism and the Inner Mission certainly 
produced them within the limitation. For all these reasons, it is right that we 
should speak with emphasis but also with reserve concerning this final historical 
phase. 

The fact to be pondered is quite simply that with increasing clarity during 
the last hundred years Christianity has heard, and obviously could not fail to 
hear, a summons inviting and requiring it to advance further along that older 
line and therefore to transcend the limitation. Within the limits which cannot 
be overlooked, this is a fact and must be registered as such. 

A new page (4) has also been turned in the last centuries and this aspect 
is worth noting in the present context in the sense that it has seen the rise, un- 
paralleled in the early and mediaeval Church, of a far greater candour of qualified 
observation, research and thinking in relation to the basis and theme of Christian 
faith and proclamation, and of a far more serious wrestling with the question of 
the knowledge of God and therefore that of the right word of human speech 
concerning Him. 

The authority with which God Himself m His revelation has made Himself 
the presupposition of the life of the Church and its message was known quite 
well in earlier periods It was powerfully presented to them in the word of 
Scripture, m the dogmas which expounded it, and in other traditions of the 
Church as authentically interpreted by the authentic teaching office of the 
Church Century by century they respected, expounded, interpreted (and 
sometimes misinterpreted) the decisions made and still being made with divine 
authority, zealously and loyally asserting them in accordance with the needs 
and language of the different ages Nor was there any lack of analytical or 
synthetic acuteness in their attempts to expound the decisions of this authority 
in terms of the concrete form m which they held them to be prescribed. On 
the other hand, they made no attempt to investigate how far these prescribed 
forms the Bible, dogma, tradition and the teaching office were really the 
form of the decisions of God Himself, given to Christianity with His authority. 
They could not and would not undertake an enquiry and understanding of these 
decisions which would exercise a critical control in relation to their form and 
determine their exposition and application. This was the limitation of all earlier 
wrestling with the question of the knowledge and therefore the true Christian 
mediation of the divine revelation. It was thought that this could and should 
be dealt with as with the given features in any other sphere of human knowledge 
, and speech. 

But at the very period when new questions of sources were being raised in 
other spheres, a definite advance was necessarily made m this respect with the 
Reformation Now there was to be introduced a Church of the living Word, of 
the living God Himself proclaiming Himself in His great acts What was this 
living Word ? There was agreement with the early and mediaeval Church in 
finding it first and finally attested m the word of Scripture. But how far was it 
truly expounded and applied in dogma and tradition, or by the existing Church 
and its teachers and those who were charged to guard its doctrine ? Indeed, 
how far was the word of Scripture itself its attestation ? How far was it not 
merely to be quoted and asserted as a form of the authority of God, but to be 
understood as the divine address in human speech and therefore as the norm of 
all Christian utterance concerning God ? This new question, and the attempt 
to answer it, belong to the modern movement of the Church to the world. They 
demand of the Church an assurance that the theme and content of its witness 
is really the Word of God and therefore that its witness conforms to that of the 
word of Scripture. But for the sake of this assurance the Church's exposition 
of the word of Scripture, while it had not to be abandoned as such, had to be 
radically relativised and called in question. The question of the Word of God 



32 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

in the witness of that of Scripture had to be continually answered afresh in in- 
dependence of tradition and in the light of ongoing investigation. And in the 
same connexion the testing of the objectivity of the witness of the Church had 
to become the content of a continual problem. From these standpoints theology 
as a science acquired a new meaning and purpose. This goal could be under- 
stood, as it has often been in various forms, to consist in an answering of the 
question of the Word of God in that of Scripture and the proclaiming Church 
according to the measure of the rational, moral, or religious self-understanding 
of man. In other words, the Word of God in Scripture and Church proclamation 
is that which is adapted to, or at any rate does not conflict with, the needs and 
possibilities and limitations of this understanding. It is a fitting and therefore 
illuminating and acceptable answer at the point where man is forced to see himself 
as a problem, to project himself. For those who regarded and posed the question 
in this way, exegetical and dogmatic theology necessarily became an application 
of the contemporary spirit of the age and therefore a distinctive historical, 
psychological and practical form of the regnant philosophy. But the question 
could be understood quite differently. Exegetically it could be understood as 
the question of what the word of Scripture itself understands by the Word of 
God attested in it, and how it explains itself in this regard. Dogmatically it 
could then be understood as the question of the Christian word which proves 
itself right in the fact that it, too, keeps itself open and fluid in its relation to the 
Word of God which is to be received where the sovereignty of the word of Scripture 
over all man's self-understanding is accepted instead of being curtailed and 
finally suppressed On this understanding theology achieves its true theme and 
method as obedience to the living Word of God preceding it in Scripture. Through- 
out the whole of the modern period there has been theology of both kinds For 
our present purposes we need not take up any attitude in their disturbing but 
salutary inner conflict. Our concern is simply with the fact that these centuries 
have been centuries of strenuous theological work both exegetical and dogmatic , 
and that work of this kind was never previously undertaken m the Church for 
the obvious reason that it was not affected by the question of the right knowledge 
of the Word of God and its correct reproduction in human thoughts and words, 
that it did not think it needed that critical assurance of and by the sources, that 
it did not feel so acutely in its own day the need not merely to organise and practise 
a cultus but to speak loudly and clearly, and when it did so, not merely to recite 
and protest, but to explain and apply in the freedom of direct responsibility 
The work of Evangelical theology may have been done in wrong ways as well as 
right. Its exposition and doctrine may have been dictated by a presupposed 
hermeneutics or its hermeneutics by its exposition, as also its doctrine But 
either way it characterises the modern age as a period when the question of the 
responsible explication and application of the Word of God attested in Scripture 
could allow the Church no rest, as the period of a new seeking of the true objec- 
tivity of Christian thought and speech to which even great and in their way 
audacious thinkers like Augustine, Anselm and Thomas Aquinas did not see 
themselves compelled in times past. 

I know of no other explanation of this phenomenon than that suggested in 
relation to the other phenomena of the age, namely, that as it was the time when 
the Church was betrayed into great isolation and constriction, so it was also 
the time of its new outreach, of its new turning to the world between which and 
itself there now arose and continually increased the diastasis. Engaged in this 
address, it had to speak, and to be able to speak it had to know. And to carry 
any weight, its knowledge had to be certain. The work of Evangelical (and in 
isolated instances even Roman) theology in these centuries reflects the struggle 
of the Church for certainty in its outgoing to men. For this reason the newer 
theological work, in this case even in its weaker as well as its stronger elements, 
belongs to the credit side of the total picture. 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 33 

We may also refer (5) to the phenomenon of a turning of the Church to the 
world which has revealed itself with increasing clarity since the i6th century 
within the different Christian bodies, namely, the questioning of the classical 
distinction, taken for granted in the Middle Ages, between a religious and a 
secular status, between clergy and laity, between theologians and non-theologians. 

Significant indication of this development may be found in the existence of 
the Franciscan tertianes and later the Brethren of the Common Life, as also in 
a particular attention to Christ as the Teacher. In the relationship of the 
Reformation with a popular Humanism it was obvious that in certain strata at 
least even the so-called secular class, hitherto merely instructed and led, had 
attained an awareness of its common responsibility for the doctrine and life of 
the Church, and was prepared on the basis of its own judgment actively to 
participate in fashioning and practising it either in co-operation with the bearers 
of spiritual office or in certain cases in opposition to them. When for the first 
time in 1520 Luther unequivocally stated his doctrine of the priesthood of all 
believers, this was not a speculative discovery, nor was it merely taken from 
Holy Scripture, but it also envisaged the actual rise of an educated and semi- 
educated middle class and nobility and even in some cases peasantry, with whose 
almost violent interest in the new theological answers the printing presses of 
the day could hardly keep pace. The political and ecclesiastico-pohtical con- 
solidation of Evangelical Christianity in consequence of the Counter- Reformation 
did, of course, lead in the first instance to a new over-emphasis even in this sphere 
on the clergy and theologians Calvin's doctrine of the Church at the beginning 
of Book IV of the Institutio is in fact a very aristocratic doctrine of ecclesiastical 
office, or the ministry, or the administration of the word and sacrament, which 
was to be exercised by an exclusive and special class, and in which the com- 
munity, represented by the elders and deacons ordained alongside the presbyters 
and deacons, could only incidentally play any active part These and similar 
divisions have officially persisted until well into the igth century, and even to 
our own day, in Lutheran and Anglican as well as Reformed circles. But even 
in the 1 7th century there were active subterranean movements among the 
Christian laity which quickly came out into the open in separatist bodies like 
the Baptists and Congregationahsts Before the theologians Spener and Francke, 
the conventicles which met independently for Bible-study and devotion in the 
houses of townspeople, peasants and the nobility were representatives of the 
variegated movement known to Church history as Pietism In the age of the 
Enlightenment a new impulse was given to the emancipation of the laity by the 
gradual but inexorable development of a general freedom of faith and conscience. 
In the awakening which inaugurated the igth century they then played a decisive 
role, as in the case of the oculist H Jung-Stilling and the lady of society Juliane 
von Krudener Nor when we think of the contemporaneous revival of Roman 
Catholicism can we forget the incursion of writers like F. R. Chateaubriand and 
J de Malstre, from whom a direct line may be traced to the Catholic Action of 
modern France and poets like Bernanos, Pguy, Claudel and their disciples. To 
the association on the Evangelical side of theological untrained and non-ordained 
elements in the various evangelistic and social movements already mentioned, 
there corresponds on the Roman Catholic the large number of congregations of 
Mary, whose membership can now run into millions as in the case of the American 
Knights of Columbus. On what side to-day do not the Churches have alongside 
their specially called representatives, and often competing with them, more or 
less spontaneously committed and well-informed fellow-workers from among 
what were previously the purely receptive congregations ? Where do they not 
live a most important part of their life in freely formed groups of men, women 
or young people usually or always coming together ad hoc ? Working associations 
like the Evangelical Academies in Germany (which in their good and less good 
elements are an unmistakeable fruit of the D.C.S.V. of preceding decades), or 

C.D. IV.-III.-I. 2 



34 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the movement of Church and World which has spread from Holland, have come 
to the fore during the last years. And individual ecclesiastically minded and 
theologically instructed doctors, lawyers, teachers, writers and politicians, some- 
times much superior to trained theologians in their own field, are no longer a 
rarity in the main confessions Yet to see the whole picture we must not overlook 
the fact that occasionally at least, as theologically represented by such men as 
R. Rothe and L. Ragaz, there has been the reverse movement from a narrower 
to a wider form of secular Christian service, whether in the case of the man who 
at the turn of the century caused a sensation by becoming a factory worker for 
three months, or the essentially far more resolute action of the French worker- 
priests who have been temporarily suppressed but will surely come back in some 
form, or of Albert Schweitzer and the path which he has so impressively taken. 
The wall which once separated the chancel of the church from the nave has never 
rested on very solid foundations. And if in the modern period it has not yet 
wholly disappeared, it has obviously been pierced in places and begun to crumble 
Critical caution is needed in face of this phenomenon too. For one thing, 
the relativisation of the division is only partial even to-day We cannot say 
that a majority, let alone the totality, of Christians has taken part in this advance 
Even where it has taken place, it might so easily result, as once in the official 
Protestantism of the i6th century, in the formation of a new and enlarged 
clergy with no great significance for the existence of the rest of the community 
And even to-day there are ecclesiastical circles where this penetration has either 
not been attempted at all or only with great timidity, and the old wall of partition 
has been made the more blatant and effective by the addition of new paint. 
More noteworthy still is the fact that, while in all ages there has been a more or 
less culpable and serious resistance on the part of the trained and commissioned 
members of the Church, which has given good cause and reason for the emancipa- 
tion of the laity, the laity as such were never the better Christians, so that their 
emergence cannot be a pure awakening to their joint responsibility and obligation 
to the cause of the Gospel, nor can it take place and form in this spirit, represent- 
ing and expressing itself as a necessary reaction and salutary corrective On 
the contrary, consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, their emergence 
has always been, or has always quickly become, a powerful element in the secular- 
isation of preaching, teaching, order and mission which threatens the Church 
as Church in correspondence with the achievement of autonomy by the secular 
sphere. The criticism and resistance brought against the movement on the 
part of the specially trained and commissioned, their reservations even as for 
good reasons they have desired and stimulated and fostered it, are not then wholly 
and utterly groundless for all the objections which might be made to them. It 
might well be that as the awakening " people/' appealing to the unquestionable 
promise of Jer. 3i 88f -, has risen against an unprofitable and static distinction 
between ecclesia docens and ecclesia audiens, it has also challenged the profit- 
able and dynamic significance of this distinction, attacking and to some extent 
successfully overthrowing not only the priority of a word of man but also the 
sacred priority of the Word of God. Speaking of universal priesthood, it might 
well envisage the sovereignty of man both individually and in the mass. It might 
rank itself ostensibly with the priest or theologian or preacher, but in reality 
with the Lord of the whole Church who is perhaps impotently and distortedly pro- 
claimed and represented by it, taking His government into its own hands. 
In its participation in the exposition and application and perhaps the criticism 
of the Bible and dogma, and its appeal to the Holy Spirit who blows where He 
lists, and the conscience to which each is directly responsible, it might theoretic- 
ally assert the brotherhood of all believers in Christ but practically the associa- 
tion of the homunculi who long for life and thought and speech which are not 
concretely bound, trying to secure for them the leadership of the Church itself. 
And if the ministers and theologians have often enough failed the people by 



i. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 35 

reason of their arrogant exclusiveness, they have just as often shown themselves 
too weak and yielding, and capitulated too easily to its interests, when for the 
sake of the whole what was required was vigilance, steadfastness and leadership. 
When the laity has come to have a part in Church government, with its stronger 
contact with the spirit and practice and tendencies of the surrounding world, with 
its more limited knowledge and understanding of Church history, with its form- 
ally smaller obligations, with its greater freedom of judgment and imagination 
in face of tradition, with its cheerfully over-simplified desire for action, it has 
often proved to be a most important point of entry for the most diverse errors 
and confusions, which do not threaten only some orthodoxy old or new but the 
very understanding and progress of the Gospel itself, and in the development of 
which theology and the official ministry, as shown in Roman Catholicism quite 
openly by the riotous growth of Manology and in Protestantism no less openly 
by certain Liberal outrages culminating in the events of 1933, have often proved 
to be only the mouth-piece of what is merely presumed to be a pious vox popuh. 

Recognition of these unmistakeably questionable features must not cause us 
to lose sight of the basic range and positive significance of the whole phenomenon 
in its historical context. The relativisation, acute since the i6th century, of 
the distinction which had been so characteristic of the life of Christendom from 
post-apostolic times until well on in the Middle Ages, is an indication, together 
with the other phenomena mentioned, of the spontaneous reonentation of the 
Church outwards instead of inwards, to the world instead of to itself. This 
reonentation is here fulfilled in the life of the Church itself. For, whatever we 
might think and say concerning their good or bad points, what -w ere and are the 
non-clerics and non-theologians who now come to the forefront in their thousands 
but the representatives within the Church of the world outside it, in relation to 
which the Church as a whole has now found itself caught up in a newly appre- 
hended responsibility * What was and is their gradual or more rapid rise and 
activity but an anticipation of the step beyond itself to which the Church as a 
whole has now found itself called at the very time when it has come under the 
great process of constriction within its own frontiers ? And what else but the 
recognition of a new call, obviously forcing itself even upon the official representa- 
tives, leaders and teachers of Christianity, was the reason why, for all the necessary 
and often neglected reservations which they might have, they could not basically 
resist the upsurgence of the Christian laity, but had rather to approve and even 
stimulate and foster it ? The fact cannot be ignored that, in mcontestably 
effective individual forms and more general movements if not in its totality, 
tjie Christian people living by the very nature of the case on the frontier between 
the Church and the world, between the sacred and the secular, has now introduced, 
as it were, the sacred into the secular, or the secular into the sacred, in the 
various activities more or less happily conceived and initiated by it In many 
cases it has been quite unconscious of its actual aims and achievements. But 
those who, in either of the two classes which were formerly so sharply dis- 
tinguished, have now heard and hear the call to move out as a call to obedience 
to the Church's mission to the world, should certainly realise that in the removal 
of the inner frontier we have an intimation and preparation for the crossing of 
the outer, and therefore an indication to the Church to take up its prophetic 
office. 

A final point to be noted (6) is that the ecumenical conception, namely, the 
conception of the unity of the Churches in the one Church of Jesus Christ, and 
the desire and striving for this unity, have not merely been latently present in 
the modern period from the very outset, but have visibly and palpably increased 
in strength. 

Here, again, we must not exaggerate. The beginning of the period saw the 
great and unavoidable but genuinely regrettable disruption of the Western 
Church, and this was followed at once by an appalling number of lesser divisions. 



36 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

For all the promising understandings in detailed points, the gulf between the 
Roman and all other Churches is still of frightful depth. Nor are there lacking 
even to-day all kinds of old and even new emphases and over-emphases on the 
differences and divisions between the other denominations. 

Yet from the outset and continuously this centrifugal tendency has been 
opposed by hopes and efforts of a very different character. In the i6th century 
we may think primarily of Martin Bucer and more generally of the Church of 
Strassburg and its theology. In the next centuries we remember men like Georg 
Calixt, J. Duraeus, Jean Fre'de'ric Osterwald and Leibniz, the many conversations 
undertaken between the Lutherans and the Reformed with a view to union, 
the strenuous efforts of the Lutherans particularly to fix on certain basic articles 
as the epitome of what is essential, indispensable and therefore unificatory, and 
finally the actual unions achieved in Germany in the igth century, of which the 
Prussian is necessarily the most significant. It is not a good sign, perhaps, that 
the first name which ought to have been mentioned in this list is that of Erasmus 
of Rotterdam. The weakness in all these attempts, revealed in the fact that 
they either broke down or led, as in the German unions, to inwardly unclear 
and therefore unsatisfactory and not very stable results, is to be found in the 
fact that the ut omnes unum sint of Jn. 17" was always understood much too 
formally and the unity of the Church was in large measure conceived as an end 
in itself This meant that there could be no escaping the dilemma either of in- 
sisting on loyalty to what for good reasons had been previously accepted and 
confessed as true Christian faith and order and practice, even at the price of 
confirming and maintaining existing divisions, or of allowing love and friendliness 
and tolerance to triumph, but at the price of an unprincipled and featureless 
relativisation or even the surrender of insights and convictions previously felt 
and declared to be necessary This older ecumenicism suffered from the fact that 
it could not detach itself with sufficient clarity from the levelling mdifferentism 
of the developing and then triumphant Enlightenment and later of Romanticism 
Even Zinzendorf and his community could be misunderstood in this neutralists 
sense. Only in the igth century and our own, tentatively at first but always in 
a very definite direction, has it been possible to move away from this deadening 
conception This has happened particularly where the union of the Churches 
has begun to be conceived in teleological and dynamic terms as a union which 
derives from Jesus Christ and is thus union for Him, namely, for the attestation 
of His work in the world and for the world A good individual instance is to 
be found in the Theological Declaration of the Synod of Barmen (1934), which 
was made in concert by the Lutherans, Reformed and United in their struggle 
against the German Christians, and the genuinely ecumenical character of which 
could be questioned only arbitrarily by an over-anxious confessionahsm 

It is in relation to this new form that we have to think of ecumenicism in the 
present context. In our century the various denominations in different countries 
have everywhere begun to associate for common tasks without affecting their 
theological and organisational peculiarities The denominations, too, have 
begun to transcend national distinctions and unite in great alliances, e g , of 
Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, on the simple 
understanding that this is demanded not merely in virtue of their common basis 
but with a view to their common action Even earlier, as in the Evangelical 
Alliance (1846), there had been interdenominational and international unions 
for concerted activity in the form of evangelical confession. This was followed 
by the interdenominational work among young people and students to which 
we have referred already in an earlier connexion, and in 1910 there then took 
place the most important Missionary Conference in Edinburgh, this being followed 
in 1914, at the very time of the political disjunction of Christendom in the First 
World War, by the formation of the World Alliance for International Friendship 
through the Churches. Under the inspiration and directior of Archbishop 



I. The Third Problem of the Doctrine of Reconciliation 37 

Nathan Soderblom the so-called Conference of Life and Work was then held in 
Stockholm in 1925, and here for the first time (1600 years after Nicaea) there 
assembled an explicitly " ecumenical " gathering officially organised by the 
different Churches and for the first time including representatives of the Eastern 
Church, though not of Rome. It was now expressly stated that unity is not an 
end in itself. What was desired was that " in penitence, and with a keen sense 
of the mischief of socio-ethical confusion and division, the duties of Christians 
and the Church should be seen in the needs of the age, and a serious attempt 
made at the following and discipleship of the Saviour " (S&derblom, RGG*, II, 
85). For the time being there was conscious hesitation to attempt an organisa- 
tional union of Churches. This could not even be envisaged, let alone undertaken, 
except on a solid theological basis. In relation to this distant goal to be achieved, 
if at all, only in this way, the first movement and conference for Life and Work 
was accompanied by a second, the Lausanne Conference for Faith and Order 
(1927), which was closely related by personal links to the former, and in which 
the question of Church unity, now understood as an inner matter of faith and 
order, was directly related to that of the Christian message to the world. The 
Oxford Conference (1937) carried the discussion of this aspect deeper, and later 
Amsterdam (1948), in which both movements combined, resulted not merely 
in the formation of the World Council, not as a universal Church but as a covering 
organisation and alliance of about two hundred and fifty national and con- 
fessional Churches, but also and note the interrelationship of the two motives 
in a comprehensive pronouncement concerning " Man's Disorder and God's 
Design," together with a first message not merely to the Christian public (as at 
Stockholm, 1925) but to the whole world. The latter example was again followed 
at Evanston (1954) m respect of its specific theme, " Christ the Hope of the 
World " 

It may well be asked whether the time, or rather the inner situation and 
spiritual constitution of the Christian societies, is really ripe for such direct 
apostrophising of the non-Christian or an indifferent Christian world. It can 
hardly be maintained that what was said at Amsterdam or Evanston has made 
any great impact Nor is the reason for this to be found merely in the necessary 
element of compromise in such common statements (hence the fog of indecision 
and sterility which envelops from the very first all the ecumenical papers so 
industriously prepared at Bossey and elsewhere) It is to be found also in the 
difficulty that as yet there has been no clear apprehension of the concrete things, 
so earnestly sought in innumerable ecumenical conferences of students, which 
'the Church has to proclaim to the disorder of secular politics and economics as 
the message of salvation. 

Yet in this respect, too, our insistence is simply upon the fact that to-day, 
if not earlier, the meaning of the Church's strivings for unity has clearly come 
to be found in this turning of the Church to the world which has so remarkably 
accompanied the turning of the world from the Church, and which we have had 
occasion to notice from all the various aspects previously considered. In them- 
selves and as such the Church's attempts at unity would not be a particularly 
interesting or relevant phenomenon. The practical or m the more general sense 
missionary teleology and dynamic with which they have been pressed forward 
so energetically during the last hundred years, and particularly in the last 
decades, force themselves upon our attention. It is no accident that what is 
denoted by the peculiar English word " evangelism " seems latterly to have 
become the focal point of ecumenical interest. Here, too, there is no cause for 
unrealistic optimism. We are only at the very beginnings, laboriously made and 
quickly passing. On the other hand, there is no cause for a scepticism which 
will not recognise these beginnings as such. Certainly, m relation to speech and 
action undertaken in common with a respect for that which is distinctive yet 
an avoidance of that which separates, we have no grounds whatever to say that 



38 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

the Church lags far behind advances long since made by the world In this 
field it is obvious that it has seized the initiative, that it is quite a few steps ahead 
of the world and can be an example to it. The outlook to-day would be quite 
different if in some negotiations and conferences there were at least as honest 
and open and practical a concern for the union of the nations as there has been 
for the union of the Churches at Edinburgh, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Evanston 
etc., and as there is continually in Geneva, not in the Palace of Nations, but in 
Route de Malagnou, 17 

We have briefly recalled all these various trends in order to show that dog- 
matics is challenged, not merely by the underlying reality and Scripture, but by 
the progress of Church history, to pay particular attention to the character of 
reconciliation as revelation If this was once neglected, it cannot be so to-day. 
The aspect which we have considered may not be the only one, but it cannot 
be overlooked. Questions naturally arise concerning the astonishing outreach of 
the community to the world in the different forms mentioned, but it is a fact. 
And its only final explanation is the fact that the reconciliation of the world 
accomplished in Jesus Christ does actually have the character of revelation, of 
the Word of God demanding expression. The occurrence itself is also speech. 
It is a pure and definite summons to men. Christianity seems to have noted 
this in quite a new way in the modern epoch Why only now, and in a period 
which is so troubled in other respects * This cannot be explained We are 
simply confronted by the fact that it does seem to have noted it to-day, that it 
must obviously be orientated by it, and that however well or badly, and perhaps 
more badly than well, it has begun to orientate itself by it. 

This being the case, it is surely no accident that on the very threshold of this 
new period of Christianity Calvm should rediscover the doctrine of the munus 
Chnsti propheticum. 



2. THE LIGHT OF LIFE 

We begin with Jesus Christ. " The Glory of the Mediator " is the 
title which we have selected for this first section. And it is by means 
of the older doctrine of the munus propheticum Jesu Christi that we 
have come to see what is the third problem of the doctrine of recon- 
ciliation. In this third part then, in which it is a matter of reconcilia- 
tion as revelation, we must begin with Jesus Christ. To be sure, we 
must also continue with Him. But continuation with Him can proceed 
only from a specific beginning with Him, i.e., from a christological 
foundation in the narrower sense. This has been our procedure in the 
two first parts of the doctrine, and it must be so now, not for the sake 
of systematic consistency, but because there is no alternative. That 
reconciliation is also revelation is first and decisively event and reality 
in Him who is its Mediator and Accomplisher in His own person. We 
cannot first speak generally and abstractly of the fact that revelation, 
as the revelation of the reconciliation of the world to God, takes place 
(as it did and will take place), and then come back to Him as the One 
who is perhaps no more than the prominent Revealer. As the recon- 
ciliation is His work, so is its revelation, in its past and present and 
future occurrence. As the reconciliation takes place in Him, its 



2. The Light of Life 39 

revelation takes place through Him. It does not take place, and 
therefore cannot be seen or understood, apart from Him or in any 
way in itself. For this reason we have to begin with Him. 

And we begin with the statement that He, Jesus Christ, lives. 
This is at once the simplest and the most difficult christological state- 
ment. Any child can make it, but the profoundest meditation cannot 
master it. It says something quite formal and yet it also says the 
most material thing that is to be said of Him. It says something 
supremely particular, and yet it also says the most embracing thing ; 
something unique, indeed the one unique thing, and yet also the 
universally real and valid. 

We speak of the Jesus Christ attested in Scripture ; of the One 
to whom the history of Israel attested in the Old Testament moves 
until it attains its goal and end in the history attested in the New 
Testament, which is still the history of Israel but also the origin and 
beginning of that of His community. We speak of the Subject of the 
history which comes between the one history and the other, the 
one preceding and the other following, so that, as it is wholly His 
history, the history of this one Subject, it cannot be separated from 
the two histories which it integrates, just as conversely these two 
histories can only precede and follow His, and cannot be separated 
from it as that which integrates them. The Subject of this central 
history which controls and determines the whole is Jesus Christ. 
And He lives. This is where we must begin. 

That Jesus Christ lives means quite simply that He exists in the 
manner of God, and therefore prior to all else that exists, not grounded 
upon any other, referred to no other existence or support, in uncon- 
ditional freedom and power. But it also means quite simply that He 
exists in the manner of a man, and therefore like all other created 
beings, in the freedom and power of such a being as divinely deter- 
mined and limited, in the relative dependence of a single member in 
the natural and historical nexus of the created world. Hence the 
fact that Jesus lives means concretely that He exists in the manner 
of the God whose divine transcendence does not find it incongruous 
but supremely congruous to exist also in the limited manner of the 
human creature , and conversely that He exists in the manner of the 
man to whom there is given by God that which He cannot take to 
Himself, namely, to exist also in the sovereign manner of God. It is 
thus that Jesus Christ lives. It is thus that He exists. It is thus that 
He is the Subject of His history as attested in Scripture. This witness 
implies, however, that who or whatever else exists does so together 
with Him. The Creator, God Himself, exists only as He does so 
together with this One who also exists as man, and each and every- 
thing in the created world exists only together with this One who 
also exists as man. As God exists only together with this One, and 
so too the world, His existence as such is the fact in which God and 



4O 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the world, however they may oppose or contradict one another, are 
not of course one and the same, but do exist together in an inviolable 
and indissoluble co-existence and conjunction. 

That Jesus Christ lives also tell us, however, that His existence 
is act ; that it is being in spontaneous actualisation. Primarily and 
supremely we have again to say actus purus, the actualisation of 
being in absolutely sovereign spontaneity, after the manner in which 
the Creator, God, actualises Himself, so that His life-action is identical 
with that of God Himself, His history with the divine history. Again, 
however, we must add that the actualisation is also after the manner 
in which it is given to the creature to actualise itself, to exist histori- 
cally in its conditioned and limited spontaneity. This is its existence 
as life in particular ; actual existence ; existence in fulfilment. On 
the one side, then, we have the living God in the fulfilment which has 
its source in Himself and is freely executed by Himself, in the 
absolutely sovereign actualisation of His being. On the other we 
have the living creature in the use of the capacity lent it by God in 
connexion with all other creaturely life, in the fulfilment of its particular 
being. As Jesus Christ lives, there takes place in Him both creative 
actualisation of being, yet also in and with it creaturely actualisation ; 
creative and creaturely life together, without the transformation of 
the one into the other, the admixture of the one with the other, or 
separation or division between them. This is how Jesus Christ is 
seen and attested in Scripture. And again this implies that God does 
not live except with this One, nor does any living creature. It is as 
He lives that the living God lives and all that is by Him and outside 
Him, so that, in spite of all possible and actual problems in their 
relationship, they live together (though not in identity) in the inde- 
structible conjunction of the differentiated act in which both Creator 
and creature exist. 

But the fact that Jesus Christ lives, and thus exists in the act of 
His self-actualisation, is the act of a person. It is not something 
but Someone who lives. His self-actualisation is not an anonymous 
process. It takes place as the work of a specfic Subject which is a 
Subject only as the Bearer of a definite name and is distinct from all 
other subjects as this Subject. It takes place as the decision, resolve 
and action of this Subject. " I live." His life is lived in the freedom 
of this I. It is a matter of the person, or I, of God. God Himself is 
the One who lives here, who is engaged in the actualisation of His 
being, who is the free Subject of this occurrence. But it is God 
Himself as this one man, as the Bearer of His definite human name, 
as the free Subject of His human decisions, resolves and actions. It 
is God Himself in the limits to which they are subject in their humanity. 
It is God Himself in lowliness, temptation, suffering, rejection and 
death. It is God Himself as the Lord become Servant. But it is also 
God Himself in the exaltation and majesty of this one man. It is 



2. The Light of Life 41 

God Himself as this Servant become Lord. God does what this man 
does. Or rather, this man does what God does. But either way this 
life is fulfilled in a personal act. We have to think of the unity of 
this personal act when the New Testament calls this living One alone 
among all others the Lord, but also the Servant. He is the Lord as 
the One who lives His life in the sovereign power proper to Him as 
the free Subject of this occurrence. And He is the Servant as the 
One who wholly and utterly subjects Himself to, and serves, this divine 
power of life even to the point of obedience unto death. This is how 
Jesus Christ lives. But we must add at once that with His own life- 
act, which is directly that of God Himself fulfilled as man, there take 
place all the life-acts of those who as free subjects (within their deter- 
mined limits) are the creatures of God. In other words, there takes 
place all human life. To live as man is to live in the proximity and 
sphere of this One and therefore of this Lord and Servant. When 
any of us says I, and in his attempt at life uses the freedom given by 
the fact that he is I and not It, he declares that in some sense he 
belongs to the territory in which Another, this One, is Lord and 
Servant, to the sphere in which God Himself says I in this Other, 
and as man makes effective and not merely tentative use of His 
divine freedom. To live as man is to belong to this sphere, to the 
sphere of the life and activity of this Other, so that, whether we 
realise it or not, the decision is made that God will accomplish His 
personal life-act only together with us, and we can accomplish ours 
only together with God. This co-existence may take different forms. 
But the fact that Jesus lives as attested in the biblical testimony to 
this history means that there is this union between God and each of 
us men, and that it is indestructible. 

But the fact that Jesus Christ lives as Lord and Servant implies 
more than the absolutely solid co-existence between the Creator and 
His creature, between God and man, to which we have so far confined 
our reference. Jesus Christ does not live for Himself. His divine- 
human existence as divine-human act, i.e., His life as we have so far 
described it, is not an end in itself. What kind of a Lord would He 
be, and what kind of Servant, if as such, for all that He had His life 
in common with others, He finally lived it in isolation in their midst, 
His lordship and servanthood in the creaturely world and humanity 
meaning only that He was unmistakeably present in their midst, and 
that by His life the co-existence of the Creator with His creature, of 
God with man, was inviolably secured ? In the New Testament the 
life of Jesus Christ is naturally not seen in this abstraction. If it were, 
its witness could not be called good news. It might perhaps be 
described as the interesting disclosure of an ontological reality. But 
it could not be called news, and it certainly would not be good news 
in face of the bitter reality of the disruption and even destruction and 
corruption of this co-existence by the pride and sloth of man, and 



42 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the whole ensuing disorganisation and misery of the human situation. 
The truth is, however, that He is the Lord and Servant who lives, 
not for Himself, but for the sake of the creaturely world and humanity, 
for their deliverance. Hence He does not merely confirm the co- 
existence of God and man, but He creates order in place of the dis- 
order which obtains within it. This Lord and Servant, humiliated 
and exalted, is the One attested by Scripture. And it is, therefore, 
as Gospel, i.e., good news, that its witness comes into the bitter reality 
of the alienation between God and man brought about by the sin of 
man, into the disorganisation of the human situation. The news is 
good because it attests the reconciliation of the world with God which 
has taken place in the person of this humiliated and exalted One, the 
creation of a new human existence and situation which has taken 
place in His person. That Jesus Christ lives, as very God and very 
man, as Lord and Servant in all the singularity of the act of His 
existence, is only the formal aspect of what has to be seen and said 
in this connexion. The material question is as follows : What does 
He live ? The answer to this question is given in and with the former. 
But we must take particular note of it. He does not merely live a 
general life which is perhaps supremely wonderful but has no particular 
relevance to the state of things between God and man. The history 
as whose Subject He lives does not take place merely in a particularity, 
however distinguished, apart from the rest of world-occurrence or in 
isolation from even one of the countless life-stories of men. It takes 
place rather as the history of salvation ; as the occurrence of the 
coming and eventuation of the salvation of the whole world and all 
men ; as the happening which determines all history and embraces 
all other histories. His life is the life of the grace in which God con- 
firms, restores and fulfils, not merely His co-existence with man as 
such, but the covenant with Him which man has broken ; in which 
He moves towards man in spite of his No, cancelling this No and 
pronouncing His own Yes ; in which He justifies and sanctifies sinful 
man ; in which He addresses him as His own child and claims him for 
His service. As the life of grace it is the life both of the Lord and 
the Servant, both of the Good who condescends to man and the man 
exalted to God. As the life of grace it is His own life distinct from 
all others and in this way lived for God and man, given up wholly to 
the cause of God and man. As the life of grace it is His life, and as 
such the life of God and that of the world and all men, i.e., our life, 
the life of fellowship with God and peace with one another and our- 
selves which is created for us and given us by Him. As the life of 
grace, reconciling life, it is the life of the One who within the creaturely 
and human world is really Lord and Servant, and both as its Deliverer. 
It is this reconciling life of grace which is lived by Jesus Christ. This 
as such is the act of His existence. Concretely and in its specific 
content the witness of Scripture to the history of this Subject is the 



2. The Light of Life 43 

witness to this life of His which reconciles the world, and in the world 
each individual, with God. And as His life has this meaning, direction 
and power, the witness to it is good news. 

We can now return to our original statement. Even the formal 
and general truth must be considered that God and man are in any 
case bound and live together. As Jesus Christ lives, God and man 
live in this conjunction. We do not have God here and man there ; 
God is the God of man and man the man of God. This is the epitome 
of the whole order of creation. This order, too, has its dignity, 
validity, power and persistence in the fact that Jesus Christ lives. 
But it has its content and fulness in the fact that the life lived by 
Jesus Christ is the life of grace, that it is the life of the Saviour. From 
the standpoint of this content and fulness, the one order of God is the 
order of reconciliation. As such it is more than the order of creation, 
since it is the order of the free mercy in which God is not content 
merely to be with man as in some sense his great Neighbour, but in 
which, even though man is a poor and bad neighbour who has forfeited 
rather than deserved it, He goes and comes to him, to take him to 
Himself in His own person, not merely as one who is conjoined with 
Him, but as one who is His faithful covenant-partner. Yet as the 
order of reconciliation it is also the confirmation and restoration of 
the order of creation The eternal meaning and content of the order 
of creation are worked out in the one order of God in the fact that this 
order is also that of reconciliation. The unity of the two, the tran- 
scending and restoring of creation in reconciliation, or, as we might 
say, the unity of the form and content of the one order of God, is 
event and reality in the fact that Jesus lives. Our present interest 
is in the life of Jesus Christ as the establishment of the new order of 
reconciliation, as the act of the God who binds Himself in free mercy 
with man, as the life of grace, the life of the Saviour, But in the 
light of the special purpose which leads us to start with it, we do well 
not to lose sight of our first statement concerning its general and 
formal significance. In the life of Jesus Christ there takes place, with 
the establishment of the new order, the reconstitution of the old. 
As a work of the merciful God, it is also the triumph of His righteous- 
ness. As the life of grace, it is also that of nature. As the life of the 
Saviour, it is also that of the faithful Creator of heaven and earth 
(Acts i7 27f -) who is " not far from every one of us/ 1 but in whom as 
His creatures " we live, and move, and have our being." This general 
aspect is grounded firmly grounded, so that no other ground need 
be sought in the particular, this formal aspect in the material, 
namely, that the life of Jesus Christ is the life of grace, the life of the 
Saviour. The fact that He lives thus includes in itself the unity and 
totality of the order, will and act of God. 

Before we proceed, three explanatory additions are necessary to 
this preliminary development of our theme. 



44 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

i. First, we must refer back emphatically to the starting-point of 
our previous discussion, namely, that we are speaking of the Jesus 
Christ attested in Scripture. The One of whom we have said that 
He lives in the sense described, is not then the creation of free specula- 
tion based on direct experience. He is the One to whom the history 
of Israel moves from the very first as to its goal, and from whom the 
history of His community springs. He is the One whose own history 
is the end of the one and beginning of the other. He is the One who is 
visible, who makes Himself visible, in the documents of this whole 
historical nexus. He, this One, lives in the figure and role, in the 
being, speech, action, passion and death, in the work, which are all 
ascribed to Him in these documents, in the features which constitute 
the picture of His existence as delineated and represented in these 
documents. The fact that this One lives, and what it means that He 
lives, are not things invented or maintained of ourselves. If we say 
them responsibly, our own responsibility is only secondary. We 
really draw on the biblical attestation of His existence. For in this 
attestation He Himself lives, certainly as its origin and theme, but 
even as such only in the mirror of the picture which is offered. It is 
He who lives, not the picture. But He Himself lives only in the 
form which He has in the picture. For it is not a picture arbitrarily 
invented and constructed by others. It is the picture which He 
Himself has created and impressed upon His witnesses. When we 
say that Jesus Christ lives, we repeat the basic, decisive, controlling 
and determinative statement of the biblical witness, namely, that He, 
very Son of God and Son of Man, the Mediator between God and 
man, the One who lives the life of grace, the Lord and Servant, the 
Fulfiller of the divine act of reconciliation, that He, this One, has risen 
from the dead, and in so doing shown Himself to be who He is. He 
lives as and because He is risen, having thus shown that He lives this 
life. If there is any Christian and theological axiom, it is that Jesus 
Christ is risen, that He is truly risen. But this is an axiom which no 
one can invent. It can only be repeated on the basis of the fact that 
in the enlightening power of the Holy Spirit it has been previously 
declared to us as the central statement of the biblical witness. 

2. " He lives " is very different from an abstract " He has lived " 
or an equally abstract " He will live." It is not merely that He did 
live, but now does so no more, being dead and living on only in the 
recollection of something past and gone. Nor is it that He will live, 
but does not yet do so, waiting to be born in some mystical fashion 
or living only with a view to His future and still awaited life. To be 
sure, He has lived. But the life which He has lived according to this 
witness, He still lives and will live according to the same witness. 
To be sure, He will live. But He will live the life which according to 
this witness He has lived, and still lives as then lived. His life is 
bordered neither by a No more nor a Not yet. His history did not 



2. The Light of Life 45 

take place to take place no more. It has not to take place as though 
it had not yet taken place. It takes place, yet not as one which is 
merely present at a single point, but in the power of a history which 
has already taken place and will do so again. This means, however, 
that the life of Jesus Christ is eternal life, which does not extinguish 
but integrates and to that extent overcomes the differences between 
what we call past, present and future. For even as human life, it 
shares the sovereignty of the life of the divine Subject over these 
distinctions. And the upshot is the same if we say also that it is the 
life of the grace which was and will be addressed to man as such, and 
which is addressed to him precisely as that which was and will be. 

3. That Jesus Christ lives is the confession of the faith which 
knows Him. If we do not know and therefore do not believe in Him, 
we either cannot repeat this confession or we can do so only without 
realising its meaning. This does not mean that this confession is an 
utterance or expression and to that extent a product or work of faith, 
its favourite child, so that what is confessed is true and real only on 
the presupposition of faith. It is faith which confesses. But it does 
not do so on its own initiative or in its own power. It makes the 
confession, but it does not produce either the confession itself or the 
reality and truth of what is confessed. He lives, and the believer 
lives by the fact that Jesus Christ lives, and not vice versa. The 
believer knows that He lives, and in this knowledge he confesses the 
fact. But it is only in this knowledge that faith in the fact is born, 
and man is able to confess that Jesus lives. Even the knowledge in 
which faith is born, so that there can and must be confession, cannot 
produce what is believed and confessed, namely, that Jesus lives. 
This knowledge does not add anything at all to the fact that He 
really and truly lives. On the contrary, in the fact that He lives it 
has not merely its object and content, but its origin. If we thought 
- that knowledge could even strengthen, let alone condition or produce, 
the reality and truth of what is known, it would not be the knowledge 
which is the basis of faith. In this knowledge we for our part are 
absolutely conditioned and produced. We are first known by the 
One whom we may know, and it is only then that we may know and 
believe and confess. The fact that Jesus lives is true and real in 
itself. It precedes with sovereign majesty all knowledge and therefore 
all faith and confession that it is so. In face of the fact that Jesus 
lives there can be no question on man's part of anything but hear- 
ing, obedience and discipleship. He can only participate in a repeti- 
tion in which he has nothing of his own to utter or express or produce, 
but can only discharge the debt of response to what comes upon 
him in this encounter. It is in this response that there is achieved 
the knowledge in which faith and confession occur. In achieving 
it, man can only confirm that the life of Jesus Christ speaks for 
itself. 



46 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

With this third note, and particularly its final development, we 
have clearly reached the sphere of our particular theme. Everything 
that has to be said about the glory of the Mediator, and first about the 
light of life, might well be summed up in the statement that, as He 
lives, Jesus Christ speaks for Himself, that He is His own authentic 
Witness, that of Himself He grounds and summons and creates know- 
ledge of Himself and His life, making it actual and therefore possible. 

We shall now attempt various descriptions of what is involved. 

The first is suggested by the title of this second sub-section. We 
have now to speak of the light of life, of the light which life itself 
radiates because it is itself light. As Jesus Christ lives, He also 
shines out, not with an alien light which falls upon Him from without 
and illuminates Him, but with His own light proceeding from Himself. 
He lives as the source of light whose shining gives light without. He 
does not need to receive light from without, from men, the world, or 
the faith of His community. On the contrary, as He lives He is 
Himself the light which shines on men, in His community and over 
the world, revealing Him to men, and men to themselves and also 
the world to men. As He lives, He is the light which comes and gives 
sight to all the eyes which as such are created and destined to see 
Him and everything which He discloses. 

We understand His life as His existence, and this leads us to our 
second description. It is a matter of His existence under a specific 
name which characterises Him, which marks Him off from all others, 
and by which He is to be called and addressed. This name is not 
accidental or capricious. It has not merely been conferred or 
appended. He Himself pronounces it. In so doing He declares and 
expresses His inward self. By it He makes known no more and no 
less than His very being. He gives us to understand who and what 
He is, His person, will and work. All real acquaintance with Him 
rests on the fact that He makes Himself known. All adequate con- 
ception rests on the fact that He introduces Himself. No other can 
do this for Him. He does not need the help ol any other. He is 
present Himself, and being present He himself breaks through the 
impenetrability of His existence to declare both it and Himself. 

We understand His life as His history, and this gives us our third 
description. This history itself, which, as we recall, is His history as 
attested in Scripture, the history of salvation, is also as such the 
history of revelation. In other words, as it takes place it makes it 
clear and certain that it does take place, yet also reveals the meaning, 
manifests the purpose, and demonstrates the authority and power 
with which it takes place, indicating the goal to which it moves, the 
source from which it comes and the ripe fruit which it bears, and all 
of itself and in its own power, so that all verification of its occurrence 
can only follow its self-verification, all interpretation of its form and 
content its self-interpretation. His history is a question which gives 



2. The Light of Life 47 

its own answer, a puzzle which contains its own solution, a secret 
which is in process of its own disclosure. And always it is He Himself 
who acts in it, and who in so doing reveals Himself, and the fact that 
He acts, and the source and purpose of His action. 

We understand His life as the work of His self-actualisation as 
Reconciler, Saviour and Mediator, and we thus come to our fourth 
description. In its high union of action and passion, of lordship and 
servanthood (in the biblical sense), His work, the will, achievement, 
commencement and fulfilment, which constitutes His life, takes place 
in truth and therefore firmly, certainly, authentically, reliably and 
validly ; nor is it hidden or veiled in mystery in this respect, but 
at once discloses itself with victorious power. It is a work in face of 
which there can be no solid contradiction, and which has nothing to 
fear from a host of flimsy contradictions, because it is the truth, and 
declares the truth. It does not merely bear the necessity of its recog- 
nition and acknowledgment within itself, but, as these radiate from 
it, it carries them in some sense before itself to the men to whom it 
comes and for whom it occurs, so that they can ignore or deny it 
only in the form of falsehood, their only normal possibility being to 
recognise and acknowledge it in its truth and significance. 

We understand His life as act, and this gives us our last description. 
The divine and human act in which He lives is also as such His Word. 
As He performs it, He constitutes Himself a sign in which He faith- 
fully repeats it in exact correspondence with its reality, meaning and 
purpose, correctly representing it, authentically sharing it, declaring 
it in such a way that it demands obedience, making it public and 
obligatory, calling all those around Him (the whole world and therefore 
humanity) to the response, not of decision, which might also be 
decision against Him, but of a right decision for Him, summoning 
them to correspond with their own Yes to the Yes which He has 
, spoken in His act. In His life, then, there is no place for the well- 
known dualism of word and act, for the nervous tension between 
theory and practice. There is no such thing as pure, undynamic or 
non-actual reason, logic or speech. Nor is there any such thing as 
irrational, a-logical, mute or mumbling dynamism or actuality. 
Wholly and utterly in the fulfilment of His life-act, this One is Logos. 
He is the "Word of hie " (i Jn i 1 ), and therefore the " light of life." 
But in the fulfilment of His life-act He is wholly and utterly Logos, or, 
as we have said already, light, name, revelation and truth. 

In the Bible glory (kabod, S6ga, gloria) is a characteristic, indeed, it is the 
supreme chractenstic, of the divine being and action, and it finds its reflection 
and response in the creaturely sphere in the glorifying (8oav, or SofoAoycfr 
glonficare) of God which is proper to man. 

The glory of God (cf. C.D., II, i, p. 640 ff.), however, is the power of 
God Himself, grounded in His being as free love, to characterise, 



48 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

proclaim and demonstrate Himself as the One He is in all His com- 
petence and might, to create for Himself recognition, splendour, 
honour and worth, to be in and under His name not merely a genuine 
reality but one which expresses, manifests and reveals itself. And the 
human action of praising, magnifying, extolling, honouring and 
glorifying God is merely a confirmation of the divine self-declaration 
which takes place in and with the divine life-act ; the corresponding 
and appropriate Amen which makes impossible and unnecessary any 
doubts or questionings. The glory of Jesus Christ embraces both the 
gloria of God and the human glonficatio which it deserves and exacts. 
As the true Son of God, Himself God from eternity with the Father, 
He is the original and authentic image of the glory of God to the 
extent that in His life-act there takes place no more and no less than 
the divine self-demonstration in the time and space of the created 
world ; to the extent that as the love of God seeking and finding 
man this act is human history ; to the extent that His doxa, His 
power of revelation, is concrete event. But as true Son of Man He is 
also the normative original of the praise to be ascribed to God by man, 
the prototype of all doxology as the self-evident response to, and 
acknowledgment of, the self-demonstration which has come to man 
from God. His glory is indeed that of the Mediator between God 
and man. It is the glory of the God who humbles Himself to man, 
and also of the man exalted to God. It is the glory of the Lord 
who is a Servant and the Servant who is the Lord. It is thus the 
glory of the fulfilled covenant faithfully kept by both God and man. 
In this unity and totality it is the light, the name and revelation, 
the truth, the Word of life. In this unity and totality it is seen 
by those of whom it is written in John I 14 : " We beheld his 
glory." 

And now we can gather together all that we have said from another 
angle and with reference back to our first and introductory sub-section. 
To the extent that the life of Jesus Christ as such is also light, name, 
revelation, truth, Logos ; to the extent that glory belongs to it as 
such, to this extent it is His life, existence, act, work and deed in 
His third and prophetic office. 

In the language of the Old Testament prophets are men in whose 
spirit, mouth and conduct, and by whose ministry, the will and work 
of God are declared and proclaimed and disclosed and brought to light 
in and among His people to instruct and encourage them. Prophets 
in the Old Testament are specially selected, equipped and called 
witnesses to Yahweh's acts of grace, judgment and deliverance as 
they have taken place, are taking place or are to be expected, and as 
they constitute the secret of the history of Israel. The life of Jesus 
Christ is a similar expression and attestation of the dealings of God 
with men. It, too, in the Old Testament sense of the term, but also 
transcending it, is prophecy. 



2. The Light of Life 49 

To the picture of Jesus Christ presented in the New Testament tradition 
there belong various accounts which show that He was regarded by those around 
as a Prophet after the manner of the Old Testament. " And there came a great 
fear on all : and they glorified God, saying, That a great prophet is risen up 
among us ; and, That God hath visited his people " (Lk. y 16 ), is said on the 
occasion of the raising of the young man at Nam ; and at the entry into Jerusalem 
" the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee " (Mt. 2i 11 ). 
For " they took him for a prophet " (Mt. 2i 46 ). Again, the disciples on the way 
to Emmaus called Him a Prophet (Lk. 24"), as did also the Samaritan woman 
(Jn. 4 19 ) and the man born blind who was healed on the Sabbath (Jn. 9 17 ). The 
belief of many is that " one of the old prophets is risen again " (Lk. g 19 ), or that as 
such He is identical with the last prophet, His own predecessor John, or Ekas, 
or Jeremias (Mt. i6 14 ). Yet the contrary opinion is also met that " this man, if 
he were a prophet," would have known that this woman " is a sinner " (Lk. 
7"), or more basically that " out of Galilee ariseth no prophet " (Jn. 7"). No- 
where do the Evangelists reject the possibility of numbering Jesus Christ with 
the prophets, nor the right to do so. But we detect a certain reserve in their 
accounts of these opinions and statements. For is He really just one prophet 
after and alongside so many others ? He is a Prophet indeed, but in the Messianic 
confession of Peter in face of these opinions concerning Him (Mt. i6 16 ) it is mam- 
tamed that as such He is more than all those who bear this title, and therefore 
that in relation to them He is a Prophet in a qualified sense. Certain phrases in 
John's Gospel plainly transcend or correct the ordinary picture, as when it is 
said that dAt/flcDs He is not a prophet but the Prophet, not one of those who has 
come, or one like them, but the One who is about to come afresh into the world 
(o f cpxopcvos cis rov Ktapov, Jn. 6 14 ), or even more categorically that He is "that 
prophet " whom many thought that they should recognise in John the Baptist 
(Jn. !" ") The use of the aXrjO&s and the puzzling definite article in these 
passages seem to point to the fact that He is indeed a prophet like others, but 
that as such He is also the One who first discharges their office in its full and 
proper sense. 

There are four points at which the prophecy of the life of Jesus 
Christ clearly breaks through and transcends the Old Testament 
concept of a prophet, and is thus characterised as prophecy sui generis. 

1. It is not subsequently even if prior to His birth and con- 
ception like Jeremiah (i 5 ) that He is elected and called to the exercise 
of prophecy, i.e., on the presupposition of His wider human existence. 
He does not acquire the prophetic commission to preach the Word of 
God as something additional to His existence and action. For its 
discharge, therefore, He does not need any ecstasies or inspirations. 
But even as He discharges it, in His own person as such, He is the 
One who is commissioned and empowered to do so. In Johannine 
terms, He is the Son who is " sent " by the Father. He speaks the 
divine Logos as He is Himself this Logos, the truth, revelation, name 
and light of God. His exercise of the apostolate is identical with His 
calling to it, and both may be equated with His life as such as the 
life of the Revealer. 

2. While He is Prophet of Israel speaking to Israel, as Israelite 
He addresses man generally and as such, i.e., all men. According to 
the Johannine statement, He arises in the suspect territory of Galilee 
from which no prophet is to be expected. And finally, rejected by 



5O 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

His own people like all His predecessors, He is the Prophet and this is 
the new element who is delivered up by His own people to the nations 
and the world, and who speaks to the nations and the world as such. 

His life is " the light of men " (Jn. i 4 ) come into the world (Jn. 3"). It is 
the light of the world, shining in it and illuminating it as such (Jn 8", 9 B , 
i2 46 ). It is like the light of the sun shining by day, so that there can be no 
stumbling (Jn. n 9 '-). For all its peculiarity to Israel (Mt. io 5 ; Mk. 7*'), His 
prophecy is universal prophecy. This could not be said of any of the older 
prophets. We might think of the exceptional figure of Jonah, who against his 
own judgment was sent to preach repentance to the Ninevites, but in Jesus 
Christ " a greater than Jonas is here " (Mt. I2* 1 ). Again, we must not overlook 
the many prophetic utterances which from the gth century to the period of the 
Exile were delivered concerning or against the nations implicated in the history 
of Israel. Yet these were not meant as utterances to these peoples, nor are they 
to be understood as such. Certainly, there is food for thought in the call of 
Jeremiah (i 6 . 10 ) : "I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations," and : "I 
have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms." Is this an 
exception to the rule ? But when and where did Jeremiah really speak to the 
nations outside the sphere of the people of Yahweh ? We do not really find any 
true fulfilment of the idea of universal prophecy in any of the Old Testament 
prophets. Their mission and message are to Israel, not to the world. 

3. This is connected with the fact that none of the Old Testament 
prophets can speak in the light of the enacted reconciliation, of the 
present reality of the kingdom of God. They have it in common 
with Jesus Christ that they speak on the basis of the covenant. But 
the covenant seen and attested by them is the unfulfilled covenant, 
established and maintained by God, but always denied and broken 
by Israel, and therefore dangerous, since Yahweh, the Lord of the 
covenant, will not be mocked. They speak as witnesses of the co- 
existence, but also of the constant and gaping contradiction within 
the co-existence, of Yahweh with Israel. They speak as witnesses, 
officers and partisans of Yahweh in His conflict with Israel. To be 
sure, they speak for His people too. Even in this conflict God is 
always Yahweh, and He shows Himself God in the fact that He does 
not weary of recalling through their lips His own will in its sovereign 
opposition to the opposition of man. But it is only as they are for 
Yahweh that they are for His people too. They speak as witnesses 
of the judgments by which the people is threatened, and will be 
afflicted, and is already afflicted, as the covenant-partner of Yahweh. 
They do not do this without also being witnesses of the promises 
which will not fail to be fulfilled on the part of God. But the men of 
Israel mistake the promises of God and are in serious danger of missing 
their fulfilment. That is why they must be addressed by the prophets. 
Hence their word can be only an indication of the glory of God and 
the salvation of men as the meaning and goal of the covenant. How 
could they be seers and witnesses if they did not point to this twofold 
goal in words of judgment no less than those of promise ? Yet their 
indication is made on this side of the abyss of the great contradiction 



2. The Light of Life 51 

by which both the glory of God and the salvation of men are seriously 
challenged. This abyss is the presupposition of their task and its 
execution. And in no case can their prophecy be more than an 
indication of this twofold goal. At no stage in the history of God 
with Israel was it more than this. Now Jesus Christ, too, is a Witness 
of the covenant. He has this in common with the Old Testament 
prophets. But what distinguishes Him from them is that He stands 
on the basis of the fulfilment of the covenant. The abyss of the 
contradiction is no longer before but behind Him. The " sun of 
righteousness " (Mai. 3 20 ), the light of the glory of God and salvation 
of men, has risen and is shining. The kingdom of God on earth, 
which is the goal of the covenant, is no longer an indicated future. 
It is the present in and from which He speaks. What He attests is 
the peace made in the co-existence of God with His people. The 
prophecy of His life is also a word of judgment and promise, but it 
rests on the fact that the judgment has been executed and the promise 
realised in the condescension of God to man and His exaltation of 
man to Himself. The prophecy of Jesus Christ is no mere indication. 
It is direct declaration. 

4. This leads us to the last and decisive point. None of the Old 
Testament prophets is a mediator between God and men. They are 
all men who are called to the side of God from among others, who 
are charged to be His messengers and champions to others, and who 
are sanctified and equipped for this task. But they are all men like 
others. Their prophecy, which is an alien " burden " laid upon them, 
can consist only in opposing to the contradiction of Israel the superior 
contradiction of its God, and therefore in revealing unmistakeably 
the opposition as such, no less in the word of promise than that of 
judgment. None of them can remove the opposition. None of them 
has bridged, let alone filled up that abyss. The contradiction is in 
themselves too. They can only suffer it ; not one of them can heal 
it, not even Jeremiah, nor Deutero-Isaiah, let alone Elijah or Amos. 
To point from afar to the glory of God and the salvation of men, 
they must all point beyond themselves. But the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ is that of the Mediator. It is not, then, the prophecy of a 
partisan. Nor is it that of a negotiator running to and fro between 
two parties and now speaking for the one, now for the other. It is 
that of the One who is both Yahweh and the Israelite, both the Lord 
and His Servant and the Servant and His Lord, in one and the same 
person. He does not need to look or point beyond Himself to attest 
the fulfilment of the covenant, the executed judgment, the realised 
promise, the present glory of God and salvation of men, the kingdom 
of God come on earth. In relation to all these things, He cannot 
abstract from Himself. The actualisation of His own life is coincident 
with them. In form and content His witness can only be self-witness : 
" Come unto me " ; " I am " the way, the truth, the life, the door, 



53 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the shepherd, the bread, the light which needs no other light or 
kindling or feeding, but gives light of itself. His prophecy is the 
direct self-declaration of His life of grace and salvation, of the life of 
the God who has condescended to man and of the man exalted to God. 
It is the revelation of His life in the fulfilment of the act of reconcilia- 
tion. This is what distinguishes Him from all His predecessors. This 
is why He is (i) the Revealer by His very existence and not on the 
basis of special election and calling ; (2) the universal Prophet who 
does not speak merely to Israel ; and (3) the Proclaimer of the present 
kingdom of God and not merely that which is to come. 

In sum, we do not have in the life of any of the Old Testament 
prophets a true type or adequate prefiguration of the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ. The only thing which any of them has in common with 
Him is to have been also a witness of the true and real covenant of 
God with man, a proclaimer of this presupposition and contour of the 
divine act of reconciliation. In their own times and manners, they 
were all this. Nor is it a little thing that they were. This is what 
distinguishes them from all the prophets, heralds, teachers, preachers 
and instructors which have never been lacking outside Israel both 
before and after them and right on into our own age. Because they 
were this, even to-day they are to be heard by us as the heralds of 
the divine act of reconciliation as the fulfilment of the covenant, just 
as the apostles are to be heard as its later witnesses. For all of them 
in different ways proclaim the covenant as the presupposition and 
contour of the divine act of reconciliation. But they do so within 
their limits. They are witnesses who are only incidentally summoned 
and appointed in the sphere of the one special people of the covenant. 
Their witness is borne in face of the breach of the covenant and the 
rift between its partners. They are witness who cannot speak in 
their own cause. Their prophecy attains its goal and therefore its 
end in that of Jesus Christ. It could have no continuation post 
Christum. There can be no more legitimate prophets like them. 

According to Ro. 12* the Christian prophets mentioned in the New Testament 
are bound to the dvoAoyta T-fjg marcus. This means that they are secondary 
witnesses of the first and one true Witness. In other words, they are witnesses 
of Christ. To try to speak in abstraction from His coming and work in the style 
of Elijah, Amos, Isaiah or Jeremiah, is to be a false prophet post Christum. We 
cannot fail to insist that much preaching which is well meant, and perhaps deeply 
sincere and moving, even having a touch of inspiration or ecstasy, but prophetic 
only in the Old Testament sense, is false prophecy. Nor can even the most power- 
ful preaching of the Law in abstraction, whether directed to individual, social 
or political concerns, escape the same verdict. 

Yet this delimitation, cannot be our final word concerning the 
relationship of Old Testament prophecy to that of Jesus Christ. To 
be sure, in the life and message of no single prophet do we have a 
true type or adequate prefiguration and therefore a real anticipation 



2. The Light of Life 53 

of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. We must accept this. But we are 
mistaken, missing the wood for the trees, if we try to deny that 
according to the witness of the Old Testament we do have to reckon 
seriously with such a type and prefiguration and therefore with such 
an anticipation. Jesus Christ cannot be compared with Moses, or 
Elijah, or Isaiah, or Jeremiah. Or He can be compared with them 
only with the four qualifications mentioned. Yet the fact remains 
that Jesus Christ, the truth of His history, the light of His life, the 
Logos of His act, can be unconditionally compared and not merely 
compared, as we shall see with the glory of the history of Israel in 
its totality and interconnexion as planned, initiated, controlled and 
determined by Yahweh according to the witness of the prophets : in 
its totality, i.e., in its character both as divine act and as the experience 
and action of the men of Israel ; and in its interconnexion, i.e., in its 
character as an unbroken sequence of new events of divine faithfulness 
in their height and depth as contrasted with the great unfaithfulness 
of man. Of the history of Israel understood in this way, there must 
be said positively at all four points that which cannot be said of the 
prophecy of any one of the Old Testament prophets. We shall 
reconsider the series from this angle. 

i. The history of Israel takes place, and as it does so it also speaks, 
not additionally and subsequently, but in and with the fact that in 
its totality and interconnexion it takes place, and does so in the way 
that it does. For according to the picture given in the Old Testament, 
the fact that it takes place, and does so in the way that it does, has 
from the very outset and continually its basis in an address, promise, 
command, order and summons of Yahweh. " For he spake, and it 
was done ; he commanded, and it stood fast " (Ps. 33'). This basis 
necessarily attests itself in the fact that the history for its part, even 
as it takes place, is a speaking, summoning, prophetic history, a 
, history of the Word of God in the flesh. To be sure, there also takes 
place in it the fact that it is authentically interpreted, explained and 
expounded by the specially chosen and called human witnesses who 
are the prophets of Israel in the narrower and wider sense. But it is 
not their existence and activity which brings to expression the history 
of Israel. They merely confirm and record that this is what happens. 
It is really on the basis of the fact that the history of Israel as grounded 
in the Word of God is itself speech and declaration, out of its abundance 
as the history of the Word of God in the flesh, that there arises the 
existence and activity of the prophets. They merely follow the 
movement in which the history of Israel does not merely occur, but 
as it does so makes itself perceptible, audible and understandable. 

The first point, then, which the prophecy of the history of Israel 
in its totality and interconnexion has in common with the prophecy, 
the light of life, the history of Jesus Christ, is that it takes place together 
with the history. 



54 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

This is why the Old Testament is everywhere, and not merely in explicit 
narration, a book of history. In other words, it is the book of witness to what 
has taken place, is still taking place and will take place, between Yahweh and 
Israel. It is not a history book of the earlier and later piety and religion of this 
people. Nor is it a history book of the truths earlier or later perceived by this 
people, of its earlier and later teachers and cultus forms. We can find these 
things in the Old Testament only against its own intention and with great un- 
certainty and very little profit. What interests the Old Testament witnesses, 
and what they desire should claim the interest of their hearers and readers, are 
the facts in which the whole, the nexus of common life in the covenant of 
Yahweh with Israel and Israel with Yahweh, has its structure and contours. 
They hear, perceive and understand, as these facts speak for themselves. And 
the purpose of their confirmation and recording of these facts, of their more or 
less direct reporting, is simply to cause them to speak for themselves to their 
hearers and readers. 

It is in the light of this intention that we are to understand certain features 
of the explicitly narrative sections To mention some points to which G. von 
Rad has recently drawn attention in a most impressive way, there is, for example, 
the fact that there are so very many accounts which are not interpreted in the 
texts themselves, and do not impose any interpretation on their readers or 
hearers. There are accounts of facts, as in the stories of the patriarchs, which 
are simply allowed to speak for themselves and to be received as such, which 
do not need any interpretation, and indeed seem to resist any such attempt. 
Hence we understand and explain them best if we see them as the mute but 
not really mute facts as which they are presented, and we can then incorporate 
them best, i e., in closest approximation to the simplicity of the texts them- 
selves, into the totality and interconnexion of what takes place between Yahweh 
and Israel Yet because each of these facts is concerned explicitly or implicitly 
with the totality of the history, we ought not to expect to be able to indicate 
what might be called a true historical pragmatism in the relationship between 
the texts. In these accounts that which stands at the beginning takes place 
with the character of that which comes at the end, and vice versa. Promise 
becomes fulfilment, and fulfilment new promise. Neither an ascending nor a 
descending line is to be discerned in the accounts of these facts The only con- 
sistent line consists in the fact that under the same presuppositions the same 
God is at work in and to the same people Israel in facts which are constantly 
new. Hence we need not be surprised if the differences between past and present 
events, or past and present on the one side and future on the other, are often 
blurred or expunged, for this is very much in the spirit and according to the 
intention of the authors, even though it does not assist a " historicist " under- 
standing. What has spoken for itself to them, and what is meant to speak for 
itself in their witness we cannot insist upon this too strongly is the totality 
and interconnexion of this history, its unity of before and after, of then and now 
and one day. The individual accounts of the facts are meant to bring out the 
structure and contours. 

But in this respect we are not to think only of the narrative sections of the 
Old Testament in the narrower sense The prophetic writings and those of the 
third part of the Canon are also books of history. What is the source of the 
whole series of works from Isaiah to Malachi ? It is exactly the same as that 
of the preceding history books which tell of the so-called nebum or former 
prophets. What is meant by the specifically prophetic : " Thus saith the Lord," 
Yahweh, the God of Israel ? Not the powerful or intimate or ecstatic influence 
of a numen present under the name of Yahweh, but the declaration of the past, 
present and future history of Yahweh with Israel and Israel with Yahweh. 
What makes the prophets prophets, each in his own time and situation, is the 
fact that they perceive these declarations and to the best of their ability must 



2. The Light of Life 55 

hear and proclaim them. But primarily, and quite independently of their par- 
ticular commission and its execution, of their existence and activity as prophets, 
it is the fact that this history makes such declarations. It is by the fact that it 
does so that both the former and the latter prophets live. 

And the same fact is the source of the Psalter. Where did its authors really 
derive all that they have given us in these poems by way of confession of their 
praise, their gratitude, their comfort, their confidence, yet also their penitence, 
their distress in deepest need, their hope and defiance ? How do they know what 
they obviously think they know concerning God and themselves, God and the 
created heaven and earth, God's relationship to them and theirs to Him ? There 
are Psalms in which the source of this knowledge is specifically treated, as, for 
example, Psalms 68, 77, 78, 105, 106, 107 and 136, which all consist entirely, 
or almost entirely, in more or less extended recapitulations of the earlier history 
of Israel, to which there is attached a longer or shorter or very short considera- 
tion of the writer's present and the future to which he moves. There are other 
Psalms in which the relationship to the history is disclosed only incidentally, 
and a few others in which it does not explicitly appear at all. If we are to under- 
stand the Psalms in the sense in which they were composed, read and sung in 
Israel before, during and after the Exile, we must remember that, whether 
they are Psalms of the individual or the whole congregation, they all stand in 
this relationship. Is this not indicated, incidentally but most impressively, by 
the fact that the whole Psalter, and some Psalms directly, are brought into con- 
nexion with the name whose bearer is the central figure first as the terminus 
ad quern and then as the terminus a quo of the history of Israel, viz., the name 
of king David ? What we have here is not just wise or pious poetry, but this 
one in whom so much promise is fulfilled and so much fulfilment becomes new 
promise, this one whose history is as it were the history of Israel in nuce. His 
knowledge is the basis of the knowledge extended throughout the Psalter. The 
echo of his voice is heard in it. And as the Psalms live by his voice, or more 
generally by the voice of the history which moves to him and proceeds from 
him, even when they have the character of what are called nature-psalms they 
are not timeless lyrics, but epics which follow and reflect the acts of Yahweh 
and the experiences of Israel in their totality. Mutatis mutandis the same is true 
of the Book of Job, of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and finally even the Song of Songs. 

The question arises whether the relationship of the New Testament tradition 
to the history of Jesus Christ is any different from that of the Old Testament 
literature to the history of Israel. Does not its witness relate to the self-attesting 
reality, not of a national history, but of the event of the existence of Jesus Christ 
in the form of a specific life-history, to the facts in which this reality discloses 
its structure and contours, and speaks for itself ? Do we not understand the 
New Testament best and most authentically, in closest accordance with its own 
intentions, if we see and interpret it as the attempt to repeat in human words 
what this reality has to say for itself, what it has said first and directly to the 
New Testament witnesses ? In correspondence with what the prophecy of the 
history of Israel has in common with that of the life of Jesus Christ, is not the 
distinctively responsive and repetitive character of the Old and New Testament 
writings the formally common feature which unites the two parts of the Canon ? 

2. We have maintained that none of the Old Testament prophets 
is as such a universal prophet. But the history of Israel in its totality 
and interconnexion is universal prophecy. Time and again the Old 
Testament makes it unmistakeably clear that the covenant of Yahweh 
with the one Israel and Israel with the one Yahweh, that all that 
takes place in the covenant, including its self-revelation, and therefore 
its attestation by the prophets, is not at all an end in itself and does 



56 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

not exhaust itself in this particular relationship, but has significance, 
relevance and true and dynamic meaning for the relationship between 
God and all nations, and the men of all nations. If the one God lives 
in covenant with the one people, and the one people, on the same 
earth and among all others, in covenant with this one God, then 
with this event there is created among all nations an example or 
living model which cannot fail to have a message for these nations, 
but actively and effectively speaks as such. To be sure, it speaks 
first to the one people itself, telling it of the unmerited grace of its 
God addressed to it, of the incomprehensible dignity and distinction 
accorded to it, of the gratitude and obligation thus incurred by it, 
and of the glorious future assured by it. But what is the will of the 
one God when He claims the gratitude and obedience of this one 
people ? To what does He bind it when He binds it to Himself ? 
Does He not bind it to be visible in its being in covenant with Him, 
and therefore to be active among other nations, to be a real sign to 
them in its existence as this particular people ? What is meant by 
the glorious future specifically ordained and allotted to it if not a 
radiant future beaming and shining in the world and therefore en- 
lightening the world ? Can this relationship between God and man 
in all its particularity be a closed relationship, its revelation a secret 
revelation, the particular history and word merely a particular history 
and word ? According to the recurrent declaration of the Old Testa- 
ment, the history of Israel as that of the covenant really has the 
character of an exemplary occurrence which has as such a universal 
function. And in the exercise of this universal function it speaks to 
the whole world and to all men concerning that which is for them, 
too, the plan and purpose and intention of God, concerning the covenant 
in which they, too, are enclosed, even though they do not realise it, 
concerning the glory which God will create among them, concerning 
the salvation which will come to them, concerning the grateful obedience 
for whose offering they will be claimed. In this universal function the 
history of Israel is a summons to all peoples. It is an invitation and 
demand to know and accept and allow to be worked out that which 
in the decree concerning Israel is decided and already being effected 
for them, and therefore, as partners in the covenant made with Israel, 
taken up into fellowship with this one people of the one God, to confess 
this membership and therefore themselves and their own destiny. 

The second point, then, which the prophecy of the history of 
Israel has in common with that of Jesus Christ, with the light of His 
life, is that it too, or already, is the city on the hill which cannot be 
hid. It, too, takes place in order that the blindness of all eyes should 
be forcefully ended and all eyes should be made to see. 

We must now try to review the very extensive passages in the Old Testament 
which point in this direction. In the Old Testament there is no general doctrine 
whose content is the truth that one God, the God of Israel, is the Lord of the 



2. The Light of Life 57 

whole world. But there is a witness to the decision taken in and with the special 
history between Yahweh and Israel, and revealed in it, to the following effect : 
" The kingdom is the Lord's . and he is the governor among the nations " 
(Ps. 22") , " The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof " (Ps. 24 1 ) ; " God 
is the King of all the earth . . God reigneth over the heaven : God sitteth upon 
the throne of his holiness. The princes of the people are gathered together 
even the people of the God of Abraham : for the shields of the earth belong unto 
God : he is greatly exalted " (Ps. 47 7fl< ) ; or in the same sense again : " The 
Lord reigneth " (Ps. 93 1 , 97*, 99*) ; " His kingdom ruleth over all " (Ps. 103") ; 
" From the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same, my name 
shall be great among the Gentiles " (Mai. i 11 ) ; or again : " According to thy 
name, O God, so is thy praise unto the ends of the earth " (Ps. 48) , " Thou 
shalt inherit all nations " (Ps 82 B ) ; " And of Zion it shall be said, This and that 
man was born in her. . . The Lord shall count, when he writeth up the people, 
that this man was born there. As well the singers as the players on instruments 
shall be there all my springs are in thee " (Ps. 87 Bfl ). For " all the people shall 
see his glory " (Ps. 97 fl ), and " one shall say, I am the Lord's ; and another 
shall call himself by the name of Jacob ; and another shall subscribe with his 
hand unto the Lord, and shall surname himself by the name of Israel " (Is. 44 6 ). 
What is it that tells us all this with such distinctness ? It is the history of Israel 
by its very occurrence. 

Again, the history of Israel has in its occurrence the ministerial function of 
attesting this decision within the world history affected by it. Is not Abraham 
himself, the father of the race, who lived alone in tents, described as a prophet, 
the first of all the prophets (Gen. 2o 7 ) ? There is no word of any prophetic 
activity fulfilled by him as such. All that we are told is that he built altars and 
called upon but did not preach, as Luther has it the name of the Lord (i2 8 , 
13*) He is a prophet, and as such a public person, by his very being among the 
Canaamtes in his special, or, as we might almost say, private relationship to 
Yahweh He is not among them for nothing. His name is to be a blessing for 
all the nations of the earth (i2 2f -). Similarly, Jerusalem is promised that it 
shall be " a praise and honour to all the nations of the earth, which shall hear 
all the good that I do unto thee : and they shall fear and tremble for all the 
goodness and for all the prosperity that I procure unto it " (Jer. 33'). The same 
is true of the spring from under the threshold of the temple, which deepens to 
cover the ankles, the knees and the loins of a man until he can only swim in it, 
flowing eastward by the plain to the salt sea, healing the waters of the salt sea, 
and producing on its two banks the most wonderful trees (Ez. 47 afl -)- We may 
also consider in this connexion the great ordination charge in Is. 42 1 ' 9 : " Behold 
my servant, whom I uphold , mine elect, in whom my soul dehghteth , I have 
put my spirit upon him : he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles He 
shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised 
reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench : he shall 
bring forth judgment unto truth He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he 
have set judgment in the earth : and the isles shall wait for his law. Thus 
saith God the Lord, he that created the heavens, and stretched them out ; he 
that spread forth the earth, and that which cometh out of it ; he that giveth 
bread unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk therein. I the 
Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep 
thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles ; to 
open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit 
in darkness out of the prison house. I am the Lord : that is my name : and my 
glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Behold, 
the former things are come to pass, and new things do I declare : before they 
spring forth I tell you of them." Relevant also is the judgment scene in Is. 
43 8fl - : " Bring forth the blind people that have eyes, and the deaf that have 



58 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled : 
who among them can declare this, and shew us former things ? let them bring 
forth their witnesses, that they may be justified : or let them hear, and say, It 
is truth. Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have 
chosen : that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he : before 
me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the 
Lord , and beside me there is no saviour. I have declared, and have saved, 
and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you : therefore ye 
are my witnesses, saith the Lord, that I am God " We may recall the mission 
and promise of Israel : " Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou knowest 
not, and nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee because of the Lord 
thy God, and for the Holy One of Israel , for he hath glorified thee " (Is. 55*) 
For : " It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the 
tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel I will also give thee for 
a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the 
earth " (Is. 49). Note should also be taken of the great passage in Is. 53* " 
concerning the suffering Servant of the Lord, concerning rejected, humiliated, 
defeated and unattractive Israel. For it is he that " shall be exalted and ex- 
tolled, and be very high . he shall sprinkle many nations ; the kings shall 
shut their mouths at him for that which had not been told them shall they 
see ; and that which they had not heard shall they consider " (Is. 52 18fl ) The 
history of Israel as such is at work in this prophetic office. " Their sound is 
gone out into all lands , and their words into the ends of the world " (Ps. 19* 
P.BV). 

Again, in its occurrence as such it is one long address and summons to the 
world " I will give thanks unto thee, O Lord, among the heathen, and sing 
praises unto thy name " (Ps i8 49 , cf 57, io8 8 ) which carries with it the call : 
" Magnify, O ye nations, his people " (Deut 32"), i e , this people as the people 
of Yahweh. But strictly this means " O bless our God, ye people, and make 
the voice of his praise to be heard " (Ps 66 8 ) , " O praise the Lord, all ye nations : 
praise him, all ye people " (Ps ny 1 ) ; " Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all 
ye lands Serve the Lord with gladness : come before his presence with singing 
Know ye that the Lord he is God it is he that hath made us, and not we our- 
selves , we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture " (Ps ioo lf -) Similarly 
" Let all the earth fear the Lord : let all the inhabitants of the world stand in 
awe of him " (Ps 33 8 ) , " Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth , O sing 
praises unto the Lord " (Ps 68 32 ) And finally " Let every thing that hath 
breath praise the Lord " (Ps. 150*) 

But is this decision in force ? Does the ministry accomplish what is intended ? 
Is the call followed ? Does the dynamic of the history of Israel consist only in 
the fact that it is in some way significant, but not powerful and effective ? The 
answer is that, as it is this word addressed to the world, it undoubtedly fulfils a 
real movement into world history as a whole " And all people of the earth 
shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord ; and they shall be afraid 
of thee " (Deut. 28 10 ) When they hear of the ordinances given to Israel they 
shall say : " Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people " 
(Deut. 4 e ). Corresponding to the outflow of the stream from the temple there 
shall be a great inflow of nations into it. " And many people shall go and say, 
Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God 
of Jacob ; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for 
out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 
And he shall judge among the nations, and shall direct many people" (Is. 2 8fl - 
cf Mic. 4 lff ) "At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord, 
and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem : 
neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart " 
(Jer. 3 17 ). "In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold 



2. The Light of Life 59 

out of all the languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him 
that is a Jew, saying, we will go with you : for we have heard that God is with 
you " (Zech. 8 M ). Even more strongly : " The Sabeans, men of stature, shall 
come over unto thee, and they shall be thine : they shall come after thee ; in 
chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, saying, Surely 
God is in thee ; and there is none else, there is no God " (Is. 45 14 ). The same 
movement is more magnanimously described in Is. 6o 2fl - : " For, behold, the 
darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people : but the Lord 
shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. And the Gentiles 
shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thine 
eyes round about, and see : all they gather themselves together, they come unto 
thee," the following verses describing how they fly like a cloud or like doves 
to their windows, carrying their particular treasures into Jerusalem through 
gates which are open both day and night. The isolated and striking passage 
Is IQ M -" points in the same direction. It speaks of five cities in Egypt " which 
speak the language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts," and of an altar 
built to Yahweh in the midst of Egypt as a sign and witness. " And the Lord 
shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, 
and shall do sacrifice and oblation ; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, 
and perform it " And finally, and even more radically : "In that day there 
shall be a highway out of Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian shall come into 
Egypt, and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians shall serve with the 
Assyrians In that day shall Israel be the third with Egypt and with Assyria, 
even a blessing in the midst of the land : whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, 
saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of mine hands, and 
Israel mine inheritance " In short, " I will turn to the people a pure language " 
(Zeph 3 9 ) " And the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the 
Lord, as the waters cover the sea " (Hab 2 14 ) " The kingdom shall be the Lord's " 
(Ob 21) In face of these and other passages there can be no doubt that according 
to the witness of the Old Testament the kerygma which goes out in the history 
of Israel is powerful and effective 

Certain comments are demanded It is obvious that this whole witness to 
the universal significance, scope and meaning of the history of Israel has an 
eschatological character It was its future or final course which was presented 
to the Old Testament witnesses in this universal prophetic character. But 
we should not lose sight of the fact that it was still the familiar past and present 
history which was presented to them in this final course and therefore in this 
character It was thus, in this teleology, that it spoke to certain men at certain 
times, as the coming and being together, not only of Yahweh with Israel, but 
of Yahweh and Israel with the nations, with those near and far, with the whole 
world. It was as the history which even now hurries relentlessly to this future, 
bearing it within itself, that there presented itself to them the whole sequence 
of the facts created by God and experienced by Israel, from the calling of 
Abraham by way of the sojourn in Egypt, the deliverance at the Red Sea, the 
conquest of Canaan, the glory and fall of the kingdom of David, the catastrophe 
of Samaria and Jerusalem, to the new exile and return. This is what disclosed 
itself to them as its meaning and purpose. This was its apocalypse or revelation. 
Is it not, then, rather difficult to criticise or bewail the supposed nationalistic 
tones which may occasionally be found (even in the passages adduced) in the 
Old Testament witness to this revelation ? And is it not even more difficult 
to refuse to take this other side seriously because it has here " only " an eschato- 
logical character ? What do we mean by this " only " ? Is it not its true im- 
portance that it has this side, that it is also witness of the future, of this future 
of the history of Israel and its prophecy ? To be sure, it is for the most part 
in the later parts of the Old Testament Canon that this aspect obviously finds 
expression. It is for the most part the voice of prophecy before, during and after 



60 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the Exile which is heard in this respect. But the point is that it is the history 
which leads from the election of the fathers by so many climaxes and crises to this 
catastrophe, and then to the disillusionments, misery and great bewilderment of 
this period, which before the eyes and ears of these later prophets discarded 
the appearance of particularism in which it was previously enveloped, and repre- 
sented itself as the history in which the one Yahweh of the one Israel was and 
is and will be on the way and at work not only with Israel but with all men 
everywhere. It did this at this stage of its development : not at the time of 
David and Solomon ; but at the time when Israel-Judah could recognise itself 
in the figure of the chastised, stricken and afflicted Servant of the Lord. Could 
it more clearly demonstrate its prophetic power than by representing itself at 
this period, and in face of the apparently opposing adversities of this period, in 
this final character as universal prophecy ? 

We can see plainly how the Old Testament witness to the prophecy of the 
history of Israel coincides with the New Testament witness to Jesus Christ as the 
" light of the world " " which lighteth every man." We naturally accept the 
fact that it is historically distinct and limited as compared with the latter. It 
attests " only " the prophecy, revelation and self- witness of the history of Israel. 
But again we must ask what is meant by " only." If we let it say what it does 
say in its historical distinctness and limitation, not suppressing or depreciating 
what in its final phase it has to say concerning the teleology of this history, we 
shall be astonished at the agreement of these later prophets, not with Jesus 
Christ, but certainly with His apostles and the New Testament community 
generally. 

For the rest, in comparing the Old and New Testament witness, can we 
really avoid the impression that the former is richer, more explicit, more patent 
and more emphatic than the latter in relation to the problem of the universalism 
of the covenant, the glory of God and the salvation of man as this is envisaged 
from the very first, and therefore also in respect of the implied missionary task ? 
Indeed, the New Testament passage in which the universalism of the Christian 
kerygma is most plainly and expressly declared, namely, Rom. 9-11, has as its 
main theme, not an indication that it also applies to the Gentiles, but a recollection 
that the perverse Israel of the Synagogue must always be numbered among its 
recipients. The relationship is paradoxical It can be explained only by the 
fact that the universalism of the prophecy of Jesus Christ was so plain and self- 
evident to the New Testament community that there was no need to emphasise 
it more strongly than is clearly enough done in the missionary command, in 
Paul, in the Gospel of John, and particularly in the Lucan writings The Old 
Testament says what is not self-evident in relation to the prophecy of the par- 
ticular history of Israel, and for this reason, in order that it should not be over- 
looked, it says it so much the more forcefully and colourfully. In this respect 
we cannot be over-attentive to it if we are truly to understand the far less vivid 
universalism of the New Testament. If there had been this proper attention, 
there could not have been that fatal stagnation of missionary thinking in older 
Protestantism. 

3. We have described it as a further limitation of the word of all 
the individual prophets of the Old Testament, as a further mark of 
their dissimilarity to the prophecy of Jesus Christ, that none of them 
can speak on the basis of the accomplished reconciliation and the 
present kingdom of God. But the prophecy of the history of Israel 
in its totality and interconnexion does not suffer from this restriction. 
It certainly speaks of the conflict and contradiction between Yahweh 
and His people. But it does not speak on the basis of this, nor is it 



2. The Light of Life 61 

the origin, content and theme of its witness as we have to say of the 
utterances of all the individual prophets as the great representatives 
and champions of Yahweh against His people. It speaks synthetically, 
not analytically, and therefore unequivocally of the grace of the 
covenant. For this reason it is not merely the reference to a distant 
future but the declaration of the presence of the glory of God and the 
salvation of men, of judgments executed and promises realised. It 
attests itself as a history which even in its climaxes and crises, even 
in its plumbing of the very depths in constant outbreaks of human sin 
and guilt, is overarched and stabilised and ordered by the grace of 
the covenant, so that, notwithstanding all the confusions and dis- 
ruptions which it includes, the being of God is finally and decisively 
an affirmation of the people of Israel, and the being of the people of 
Israel is finally and decisively an affirmation of its divine election 
and calling. It attests itself as a history in which there is a deeply 
concealed but very real positive continuum, so that visible fulfilments 
can never be altogether wanting, and as there is both old and past 
and new and coming grace, so there is also present grace unreservedly 
lavished by God and unreservedly experienced and known as such by 
the people and the men of this people. The revelation which takes 
place in and with the occurrence of the history of Israel is the revela- 
tion of this positive continuum and these representative fulfilments. 
Even including its inner vacillations and the contradiction exposed 
by the prophets, in its totality and interconnexion it is Gospel, good 
news. We must not miss the cantus firmus of this positive continuum 
above the dialectic of the prophets. It is not entirely silenced even 
in them. That the history of Israel reveals it is the miracle of its 
utterance, witness and revelation. In this cantus firmus it goes out 
into all lands, to the whole world and all the nations, but it is also 
perceived continually in Israel itself. 

, Hence the third thing which it has in common with the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ is that in its own way it proclaims with the same 
force and fulness and from the same proximity that God is not merely 
coming to be but is, and that as the Lord on earth as well as in heaven 
He is at work as such. 

The notes sounded, for example, in the last seven Psalms cannot be regarded 
as incidental notes which are immediately silenced again or drowned by others. 
" Happy is that people, whose God is the Lord " (Ps. I44 15 ). " The Lord is 
righteous in all his ways, and holy in all his works. The Lord is nigh unto all 
them that call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth. He will fulfil the 
desire of them that fear him : he also will hear their cry, and will save them " 
(Ps. i45 17f -) " Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope 
is in the Lord his God " (Ps. I46 5 ). " The Lord hfteth up the meek : he casteth 
the wicked down to the ground. Sing unto the Lord with thanksgiving ; sing 
praise upon the harp unto our God " (i47 8f -). Then in Ps. 148 there follows the 
great summons, addressed to the whole creation of heaven and earth, to praise 
the Lord ; in Ps. 149 a similar summons to the congregation ; and finally in 



62 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Ps. 150 the call to a great orchestra of trumpets, shawms, cymbals and other 
instruments to do the same. We misunderstand the Old Testament if we do 
not realise that this element of praise or doxology is the basic note. But it is 
first the basic note, not of the Old Testament, but of the history perceived 
by the Old Testament witnesses. The sign under which, or the bracket within 
which, this history takes place is the enthronement of Yahweh, which according 
to a new conjecture was perhaps celebrated every year, but which took place 
from all eternity, takes place continually in new demonstrations of His power 
and goodness, and is the event of the ultimate future. Hence this history takes 
place always under His government exercised from Sinai, from Sion and from 
heaven. It always redounds to the magnifying of His glory and, however 
hiddenly, to the salvation of men. This is what is revealed by this history, and 
it is to this revelation that all parts of the Old Testament respond. 

For this reason we must not superciliously or sceptically ignore, not merely 
the promises, but the very real fulfilments which are disclosed alongside the many 
acute or chronic accounts of judgment. We may refer to the wealth of Isaac , 
to the remarkable success of Jacob in the service of Laban ; to the glorious rise 
of Joseph in Egypt ; to the preservation of the people in Egypt and its deliver- 
ance at the Red Sea , to its protection from so many enemies ; to its feeding in 
the wilderness ; to its entry into the promised land , to the victories of David ; 
to the reign of the wise and powerful and gorgeous Solomon, described in almost 
apocalyptic colours , to the glory of his temple and its festivals ; to the similar 
glory, expressly and emphatically sung in Ps. 119, of the divine commands, 
statutes, directions and ordinances given to the Israelites , to the almost in- 
credible confidence with which so many Psalmists, for all then- penitence and m 
every contradiction, still rejoice, and, it seems, are forced to do so, in their hidden 
being at the side of God and therefore in His righteousness, which they find 
confirmed in their deliverance from sickness or danger or the hands of their 
enemies , to the happy restoration with which the Book of Job finally comes 
to a restful conclusion after so much argument and counter-argument , to the 
wonderful exaltation of Esther and the later triumph of the Jews over their 
enemies , to the rejoicing on days of sheep-shearing and harvest , to the peaceful 
enjoyment of a simple life allotted to every man under his vine and fig-tree , 
to the dignity of ripe old age crowning a long life All these are fulfilments! 
They may be very earthly, material, corporal and sometimes uncertain, but 
they are palpable fulfilments. " Know ye in all your hearts and in all your 
souls, that not one thing hath failed of all the good things which your God spake 
concerning you ; all are come to pass unto you, and not one thing hath failed 
thereof " (Josh. 23** , cf 2i 46 ). And what other fulfilments are we to expect 
in the history of a nation such as is attested m the Old Testament ? These 
represent the gracious presence and gift of the covenant in which God and a 
people live together. They only represent them. But in so doing they represent 
the positive continuum, the final and indestructible meaning and purpose of 
this history In them there is declared and revealed and attested what Calvin 
according to his understanding called the substantia foedens identical in both the 
Old Testament and the New ; the power, mercy and faithfulness, the infinite 
generosity of God addressed to man and experienced by Him, as these are already 
at work in the totality and interconnexion of the history of Israel, not sparsely 
or partially, but in all their fulness. 

The New Testament witnesses could hardly praise God more highly than is 
already done in the Old. On the contrary, it is no accident, nor does it rest on 
an error or confusion of categories, that m its extolling of the grace of Jesus 
Christ it so often uses the notes and language of the Old Testament praise of God. 

4. On this basis we can hardly contest the fact that the history of 
Israel and its prophecy have a mediatorial character. One aspect in 



2. The Light of Life 63 

which it bears this character in the Old Testament is that it is a 
sequence of events in which God and man are together and work 
together, though naturally it is God who absolutely precedes and 
man can only follow. Even as sovereign acts and words of God, as 
His free acts of rule, judgment, salvation and revelation, these events 
are also human actions and passions, works and experiences, and vice 
versa. If in their Old Testament presentation and attestation now 
the one side and now the other is given prominence, there is a general 
acceptance of their co-existence and co-inherence, of their basic unity, 
though without any confusion or mixture of the two elements, or 
transformation of the one into the other. And if this history in its 
totality and interconnexion speaks as prophetic history, it does so in 
attestation of this living divine-human unity. Its word is prophecy 
which combines rather than divides, which unites rather than 
separates, because it comes from the centre and proclaims the centre 
where what is above and what is below, transcendent God and lowly 
man, are together. Hence the Old Testament writings respond to 
the voice of the history of Israel as it derives from this centre and 
reveals it. 

We may take as an example the account of the battle against the Amalekites 
in Ex. ly 8 '- It closes (v. 15) with the report that Moses built an altar and gave 
it the name Jehovah-mssi, in play upon which there is introduced what sounds 
like the verse of a very old hymn . "By the banner of Yahweh, Yahweh will 
have war with Amalek from generation to generation " This obviously means 
that God Himself is the One who fights and conquers Amalek , that He is the 
Hero of this battle This emerges in the very description. The decisive thing 
is not what happens on the field, but the fact that Moses on the hill above the 
tumult, with the rod of God in his hand and supported by Aaron and Hur, 
holds up his arms and does not let them fall, since when he does so Amalek 
prevails. The presence and act of Yahweh, with which these uplifted arms of 
Moses link what happens below, alone achieve the victory, and to them alone 
must be ascribed the honour of the day. Hence Jehovah-mssi Yahweh my 
,banner Hence, too, the slogan . By the banner of Yahweh, or, The hand on 
the banner of Yahweh. There is required what is done by Moses with the help 
of Aaron and Hur : on the one side the omnipotent arm of Yahweh ; yet also 
the impotent but steadfastly uplifted arm of man , the strained linking of 
what is above and what is below, of Yahweh and Israel. Nor can we omit what 
is done by Joshua and those below : " Joshua did as Moses had said to him, and 
fought with Amalek " (v. 10). Can we not say, then, that what we have here is 
simply a victory of Israel like so many others ? The intention of the story is 
not to let this element be lost, but to show how Yahweh alone is Israel's banner, 
and how Israel can and should lay its hand on this banner. In this unity, more 
or less clearly disclosed in many other stories of the Old Testament, the history 
of Israel is an eloquent, prophetic and even mediatorial history, deriving from 
and witnessing to this centre 

The other aspect which displays it in this character is a kind of 
reflection of the first. As in its particularity it takes place in the 
unity of Yahweh's action with that of His people, it also takes place 
in the centre between the will and plan of Yahweh and the rest of 



64 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

human history. What we have to say on this point is connected 
with what we have already called its functional significance. It is 
the indispensable link between God and earthly history in general. 
In its particularity it has a microcosmic character. What the one 
God wills and plans and has done and does and will do with the human 
world as a whole, He causes to take place on a small scale, but in a 
way which recapitulates or prefigures the whole, in His history with 
this one people Israel. The election and rejection of this people, the 
disclosure of its transgressions and forgiveness of its sins, the fulness 
of the benefits with which He provides for it and the severity of the 
judgments in which it is overtaken by His chastisement, the incom- 
parable distinction yet also the contemptible littleness with which He 
causes it to exist among other nations, the whole doxa of the covenant 
with which He invests it these are in nuce t in compendious form, 
His action with all humanity. In all these things the history of 
Israel is a paradigm or model for the history of all nations, and to the 
extent that it is prophecy, and is known as such, it is the key to the 
understanding of world history. Hence it is mediatorial history in 
the sense of exemplary and therefore representative history. It takes 
place among all other histories, but in such a way that it implies, 
comprehends, repeats and anticipates their origin, content and goal. 

It is the history of the son (Hos. n 1 ), indeed, the firstborn son of God (Ex. 
4 22 ), who as such is the head of all others, and of whom it is said in Ps 8g 27 
(with special reference to David as the central figure in all that happens) " I 
will make him . . . higher than the kings of the earth " On the one side, then, 
it is inevitable that general history should bring out the contours of this particular 
history. This is especially plain in the opening chapters of Genesis In the 
account of the great universal Sabbath, of the rest on the seventh day with 
which God completed and crowned the work of creation (Gen 2 1 ' 3 ), there is 
reflected the Sabbath celebration, freedom and joy of the service of God in which 
the history of Israel has its meaning and goal In the account of the appoint- 
ment of the first man to inhabit, cultivate and keep the Garden of Eden (Gen 
2 8 ' 16 ) there is reflected the induction of Israel to possession of the good land of 
promise, and in that of his expulsion from the Garden (Gen. 3 23f ) the bitter 
experience of the Exile. The story of the establishment of the relationship of 
man and woman (Gen. 2 18 ' 25 ) reflects the partnership, often alluded to by the 
prophets, between Yahweh the Husband and Israel His affianced bride , that 
of the Flood (Gen. 6-7) the apparently definitive judgment which came on 
Israel and Judah with the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem , that of 
Noah's deliverance and the covenant made with him (Gen. 7-8) the preservation 
of a holy remnant in witness to the mercy of the divine Covenant-partner out- 
lasting all the unfaithfulness of the people and its consequences The particular 
history is thus reflected in the general. But on the other hand it is equally in- 
evitable that the particular should bring out the contours of the general. What 
it means that Israel's history is really a concentration of all history, and to that 
extent takes place in its stead, for it, as its recapitulation and prefiguration, 
and the way in which it does this, are brought out with startling clarity in Is. 
53*'-, where the Servant of the Lord is also Israel as such, if not only Israel. 
It is the nations and kings who say : " Surely he hath borne our griefs, and 
carried our sorrows , yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God and afflicted. 
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities : 



2. The Light of Life 65 

the chastisement of our peace was upon him ; and with his stripes we are healed. 
All we like sheep have gone astray , we have turned every one to his own way ; 
and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." And then finally in v. 12 : 
" Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the 
spoil with the strong , because he hath poured out his soul unto death : and he 
was numbered with the transgressors ; and he bare the sin of man, and made 
intercession for the transgressors " 

This, then, is the centre this time between God and the world 
in which the divine-human history of Israel takes place, itself the 
copy yet also the original of world history. And taking place in this 
centre, as history at this point, it is revelation, i.e., eloquent, prophetic 
history. 

But this gives us the fourth point which its prophecy has in common 
with that of Jesus Christ, namely, that it attests itself to be divine- 
human history which thus takes place between God and the world. 
And this last and final point is the basis of all the features which, 
as we have already claimed, it has in common with the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ : (i) that it, too, is the history of the Word of God in 
the flesh, an occurrence which declares His will and action in and 
with men, the history of revelation ; (2) that it, too, is the light of 
the world lighting every man ; and (3) that it, too, speaks on the 
basis of the present reality of the lordship of God. 

This fourfold statement, however, leads us to very remarkable 
and far-reaching insight. The prophecy of the history of Israel in its 
unity is comparable to that of Jesus Christ in an unqualified sense 
which is not true of the testimonies of any individual prophets, even 
the greatest of them. We do not say that it is identical ; that would 
be impossible. But we do say that in and with the prophecy of the 
history of Israel there takes place in all its historical autonomy and 
singularity the prophecy of Jesus Christ Himself in the form of an 
exact prefiguration. In all its autonomy and singularity, and therefore 
in all its distinction, it is a true type and adequate pattern. To use 
a much abused but in its true sense valuable expression, it is Messianic 
prophecy, and indeed complete Messianic prophecy. And when we 
say this, we mean that as a declaration of the divine wisdom con- 
trolling it, it is fore-telling. 

We must insist that the reference is to the prophecy of the history of Israel 
in its unity. It is not a matter of a minute fore- telling in the Old Testament 
of details of the prophecy of J esus Christ as attested in the New, nor of ascribing 
to the Old Testament a mantic capacity for such fore-telling and to the New 
Testament witnesses a corresponding skill in discovering and expounding it. 
The Old Testament witnesses do not fore- tell except in so far as they attest the 
fore-telling prophecy ol the history of Israel And if in their records of the 
history of Jesus Christ the New Testament texts obviously refer on several 
occasions to specific details in the Old Testament documents and see a fulfilment 
of them, these are illustrations of the unity of the history of Jesus Christ with 
the history of Israel attested in these documents. In the ancient prophetic 
word of this history the men of the New Testament constantly perceive the new 
C.D. IV.-III.-I. 3 



66 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

declaration of Jesus Christ, as they also find the latter constantly confirmed by 
the former. In all probability passages like those in Matthew and Hebrews 
give us little more than a glimpse of the full and natural way in which they did 
this. 

The truth of the matter is that the history of Israel says earlier 
what that of Jesus Christ says later. It is Messianic history, its 
prophetic word being the word spoken by the Messiah concerning 
Himself, His self-witness. The Messiah is the One who is not anointed 
by men, but anointed to serve and rule among men. And this means 
that He is the God-man who is instituted by God Himself, and who 
in the midst of world history exists in His name, with His authority 
and in fulfilment of His will, suffering as High-priest, ruling as King 
and revealing Himself as Prophet. The history of Israel has reference 
to Him. Its revelation is His, its word and light are His, its glory is 
His. No other and no less than He exists and acts and speaks later 
for He has now become a person in the history of Jesus whom the 
New Testament for this reason calls Jesus the Christ, the Anointed, 
the Messiah. But no other and no less than He exists and acts and 
speaks earlier in the national history of Israel. He is the mystery 
which announces itself in it. In all history there is some mystery. 
But it is only in the history of Israel that this mystery announces 
itself. And it is because this is the case, because the mystery which 
announces itself in it is that of the Messiah, the God-man, that its 
prophecy is true and genuine prophecy as distinct from that of all 
other history. It can be this, however, only because it is not merely 
impelled by an idea or conception of the Messiah, but the Messiah 
Himself exists and takes form in it, so that its witness is His self- 
witness, and the announcement of its mystery His self -announcement, 
the announcement of His coming, His appearing. It is as this fore- 
telling, and therefore realiter and not merely figuratively as His 
advent, that the history of Israel is a type ; that it is indeed the true 
type as we have everywhere seen ; that it is an exact representation 
and adequate prefiguration of the prophecy of His history. 

If we may give to two words which ordinarily bear a weaker sense 
a rather stronger signification, we can say that the history of Israel is 
the " pre-history " of Jesus Christ and its word His " fore-word/' 
That is to say, it is the pre-history in which He Himself acts and the 
fore-word in which He Himself speaks. It was as such a fore-word 
spoken by Jesus Christ Himself that the apostles and the New Testa- 
ment community generally listened to the prophecy of the history of 
Israel. And it was as an attestation of this fore-word of His that 
they understood and took seriously the Old Testament. In what was 
said to them by the ancient events concerning Abraham, Moses, 
David and Jeremiah, or the life and suffering and prayers and hopes 
of the Psalmists, as they found these attested in the Old Testament, 
they did not hear the voice of a stranger, but in direct proximity the 



2. The Light of Life 67 

voice of the Good Shepherd, of the One who, as the humiliated Son 
of God and exalted Son of Man crucified under Pontius Pilate, dead 
and risen again, had spoken and still spoke to them in their own 
life-time. As the hearers of His Word in this earlier form they thus 
became followers and fellows of all those who had heard it in times 
past. Even in those times was not ancient, distant Israel, no less than 
they themselves as the community of the Messiah who had appeared 
and come, and together with them, His body, the earthly-historical 
form of His existence, the only difference being that Israel had 
taken one form before His appearance, whereas they themselves 
had necessarily assumed their own form after this appearing ? Did 
not the men of Israel and they themselves belong together as both 
belonged, the former in the time of His expectation and the latter of 
His recollection, to Himself as the one Lord and Head, receiving His 
one Word and having to attest this one Word of His with their own 
words ? For all the difference of time, place and history, could there 
be any material contradiction between the words of the Old Testament 
witnesses and those of the New ? Deriving from their common source 
and subject, were not both the earlier and the later witness necessarily 
given with such agreement that there could be mutual confirmation 
and explanation, as in the New Testament exegesis of passages from 
the Old Testament ? 

Now what came before was not yet what came after. All that we 
can meaningfully say is that it lived in and by it, that it was perfectly 
commensurate with it, and that as such it had a part in its light of 
revelation or prophecy. Thus, the history of Israel was not yet as 
such that of Jesus Christ. All that can be meaningfully said is that 
its mystery was already the history of Jesus Christ concealed in it, 
and that the disclosure of this history in the future event of the birth 
and historical existence of the Son of God and Son of David was 
already the goal which cast a retrospective light upon it. Again, even 
this light, even the prophecy of the history of Israel, was not as such 
that of the history of Jesus Christ. What is true is simply that it 
faithfully proclaimed the prophecy of Jesus Christ, saying already 
everything that He would say and thus preparing the way for Him 
His way into world history as the one coming Prophet. Hence the 
characteristic feature of what came before, of the history of Israel 
and its prophecy and the corresponding witness of the Old Testament, 
is always this " not yet " but also this " already " in the qualified 
sense in which we have used it. 

To what extent is it " not yet " ? What is it that qualifies the 
" already " ? What is lacking in this prior sphere and its fore-telling, 
including its earlier attestation in the Old Testament (Rom. i 2 ; 
i Pet. i 11 ) ? What is the limit which is never transcended in the Old 
Testament ? It is certainly not the reality of the covenant in all its 
fulness, least of all its substance in the presence and action of the 



68 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Messiah, and therefore not the self-attestation of His by which the 
prophecy of the history of Israel is made true and genuine prophecy. 
The only feature lacking is that the reality of the covenant, the 
presence and action of the Messiah and therefore His self-declaration, 
is as yet wholly and utterly concealed and hidden. It is concealed 
and hidden because and to the extent that what came before consists 
as such only in the history of Israel and what this has to say and 
says as such. The Messiah was in this. He worked and spoke in it. 
But He did so mediately and indirectly, not immediately and directly 
in His own person. Through Him it took place in this national history. 
But none of its events was the event of His existence, of His coming, 
of His personal action and speech. He was its origin and goal, but 
He did not appear in any of its developments. It is palpable that 
there is fully found within it the gracious presence and gift of God to 
His own glory and man's salvation, but the Messiah as the Mediator 
and therefore the Subject of this happening was not one of the many 
great and small among whom and to whom all this was done and who 
were the historical bearers of the covenant and witnesses to its reality. 
The history spoke indeed or rather, He, the One, who was already 
Lord, spoke in its occurrence but it does not tell us with whom we 
have to do when we hear it. To do this it would have had to be His 
history immediately and directly. But it was so only mediately and 
indirectly. It was a national history in which new figures were con- 
stantly appearing, some basic like Moses or central like David, but 
none being more than representative in relation to the whole or to 
those around, and none obviously constituting its history the history 
of a single individual. Only as a national history, then, did it speak 
its word, so that this word is not that of the history, action and ex- 
perience of a single life, and eloquent as such, but, if we may put it 
this way, the word of a dumb man which is correctly shaped and 
spoken by the lips and tongue, but is spoken without any sound and 
is not therefore uttered. Or, we might say, it is sounded out, but in 
a language which the hearer does not understand. The One who 
could not only articulate but pronounce it in understandable form 
was not yet present. Or He was present only in the form of the 
national history which included Him as the One promised and ex- 
pected, or even as its secret Lord and Governor, but concealed Him 
until His coming and appearance, thus moving around Him only as 
it were eccentrically, as around a centre transcending itself as this 
national history. The fathers occasionally ventured the comparison 
that His body was born, i.e., His people or community in this first 
form which is unquestionably His body, but not yet He Himself as 
the Head of this body. His history was announced but had not yet 
taken place in that of Israel. His word was articulated but had not 
yet been uttered in understandable form. In the words of Rom. io 4 , 
He was the end of the Law, but the Law as such was still without this 



2. The Light of Life 69 

end. The prophecy of the history of Israel was true and genuine 
because it was His, i.e., because His was announced in it. But its 
glory the glory which according to 2 Cor. 3 12f - shone from the face 
of Moses and therefore the glory of the Old Testament witness, was 
still covered by this veil. The veil was that He Himself, who made 
it for glory, had not yet come and appeared ; that there was still lacking 
the Son who had been promised to Abraham and David and on whose 
account all Israel could be called the firstborn son of God. The veil 
was that the authenticity and truth of the prophecy of the history of 
Israel were not yet confirmed and demonstrated by the One who 
was coming in it and in whom it had from the very first its basis, 
content and goal. This is what was missing in all that came before, 
in that pre-history or fore-word. He Himself was missing. And 
the fact that He was missing is the great qualification which the 
" not yet " impresses on everything which is to be seen and under- 
stood without reservation as the great distinction of what came 
before, namely, as its substantial likeness with what comes after. 
This is what limits any " already " that we may concede it. It was 
fulfilled and luminous because what comes after is the great event of 
the incarnation of the Word of God, because it had a part in this and 
was hastening towards it in its form as national history. But it was 
unfulfilled and obscure because, while it came before this great event, 
and therefore intimated it and to that extent had a part in it, it could 
only intimate it, participating only in the form of the history of the 
people of the incarnate Word, in the form of the history of Adam, 
Abraham and David, as the fore-word to the Word of Jesus Christ. 
The history of Jesus Christ as such, which follows what came before 
as its goal and end, had not yet begun in it. 

But these negative, or critical, or qualifying statements cannot be 
our final word concerning what came before. It is not a new or 
' different covenant which is established and proclaimed in the history 
of Jesus Christ. It is the one covenant in a new reality which is only 
now fulfilled in this form (or, as Calvin would say, in this oeconomia 
or administratio) because it is only now immediately and directly 
conformable to its basis, content and goal as the reality of the Messiah 
Jesus latent in what came before, in the history of Israel and its 
prophecy. It is He who, as the electing God and elected man in one 
person, is the basis, content and goal of the covenant of God with 
man. It is He who is the one Prophet of this covenant. His coming, 
appearance, birth and historical existence as this One are what follows 
that which came before, so that it is broken off and no longer continues 
as such. 

When that which follows comes, the history of Israel and its prophecy find 
in it their fulfilment and cannot therefore have any continuations. What might 
seem to be such are only recollections of their former occurrence which is now 
broken off and concluded. As such they may be very impressive. They may 



70 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

even be a kind of proof of God, as the history of what is called Judaism has been 
called. That is to say, they may be a confirmation in world history of the origin 
and theme of the Old Testament witness. But as abstract recollections they 
have always a notably unsubstantial and unprofitable character, with no true 
or genuine prophecy, because even at best their prophecy is only the old without 
the new, without the fulfilment at which it always aimed even as the old, and 
which it has long since found in the new. 

Yet the fact that the history of Israel can have no more continua- 
tions does not mean that it is outmoded, replaced or dissolved. It 
cannot be outmoded, because already the one covenant between God 
and man, instituted in the eternal election of Jesus Christ, was its 
basis, content and goal ; because it was already actualised in it in 
this first form as national history ; and because Jesus Christ already 
spoke and acted in it as His type, His pre-history and fore-word. 
The new thing His coming, appearance, birth and existence does 
not merely follow upon the old as something new and different ; it 
proceeds out of it as its fulfilment and completion, and therefore in 
unity with it. If what came before was merely with a view to what 
comes after, the converse is also true that what comes after follows 
what came before, so that it could not be what it is, nor be seen and 
understood as such, without it. The New Testament with its almost 
innumerable direct and indirect references to the Old makes it un- 
ambiguously clear that the apostles and the New Testament com- 
munity as a whole, in their dealings with the new Word of Jesus as 
the one Christ and God-man in His coming, appearance, birth and 
historical existence, could hear and understand it as the Word of His 
life and action and experience only in harmony with His Word as it 
had been spoken and received already in the national history of Israel, 
as the confirmation and fulfilment of this Word. For them as the 
witnesses of what comes after there was nothing abstract about what 
came before. The history of Israel was not merely distant, alien, 
past, mute or foreign. On the contrary, they saw it in its attainment 
of its goal, in its fulfilment, in its increased rather than diminished 
presence and reality in the history of Jesus Christ. But conversely, 
there was for them nothing abstract about what comes after. The 
history of Jesus Christ was not something in which the history of 
Israel, its present and living word, did not encounter them with the 
same immediacy and directness as it had once encountered the Old 
Testament witnesses. Far from there being any question of the 
coming and work and Word of Jesus Christ, of His death and resur- 
rection, either commanding or even permitting them to close and file 
away the book of the Old Testament, leaving behind them its witness 
and the history attested as though past and done with, the very 
opposite is true, that the Old Testament is opened up to them by the 
revelation and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, and the witnesses 
of the covenant in its first form speak specifically to them as the 



2. The Light of Life 71 

witnesses of the history of Jesus Christ as such. For it is now for 
the first time, and to them specifically, that these witnesses really do 
speak. They do not speak to those who would like to hear them 
apart from the revelation and knowledge of Jesus Christ, as though 
what came before, as attested by them, had nothing following after, 
as though what comes after had not already arrived, and the promised 
and expected Messiah had not already come and appeared. For those, 
but only for those, who have come to participate in the revelation and 
knowledge of Jesus Christ, it has meant that the veil has been removed 
from the face of Moses, and they have come to see the life and light 
of the Messiah in what came before, finding the old in the light of the 
new because the old was really the same and bore the same witness 
as the new, in terms of which it has disclosed itself as the old yet also 
as the same, and with the same fulness, as the new. For the covenant 
between God and men is one covenant, and its Mediator is the same 
" yesterday and to-day." In Him the history of what came before 
and what comes after is one history ; the word spoken before and that 
spoken after is one word ; its attestation in the Old Testament and 
the New is one witness. To be sure, there is no equation of the one 
with the other. Each has and maintains its temporal and historical 
singularity and particularity. Above all, each has its teleology, there 
being an irreversible way or sequence from the pre-history to the 
history, from the fore-word to the Word, from the first form of the 
covenant expected in the history of Israel as a goal to its second form 
in the manifested person of Jesus Christ, from the Old Testament to 
the New. Yet there is also no separation of the one from the other, 
as though the temporal and historical particularities either had or 
came to have the character of individual hypostases. There is no 
hardening of the difference between the two forms. There is no 
intensifying of it into the contradiction of two distinct religions. 
There is no competition between what is called an Old Testament 
theology on the one side and a New Testament theology on the other. 
As there is only one Prophet with whom both the Old and the New 
Testament witnesses are concerned in their different ways, so there is 
only one prophecy and revelation, one light and word, and therefore 
one biblical and Christian theology which has to search and present 
both with equal seriousness, since the New Testament is latent in the 
Old (Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet), and the Old is patent in the 
New (Vetus Testamentum in Novo patet). Such a theology would 
become irrelevant if it were to try to do the one and leave the other. 
In such a case, it would fail to do either, and thus destroy itself. 

For we have in view the one Prophet of the one covenant in its 
twofold form, first concealed and then revealed, when we say " Jesus 
Christ/' And we have in view the light of His one life, the name of 
His one being, the revelation of His one history, the Word or Logos 
of His one act, the glory of His one and only mediatorship, His one 



72 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

prophecy in its twofold form, when we consider Him more specifically 
in His prophetic office in life and being and word and act. 

But it is high time we posed and answered a basic question which 
we have so far ignored. Hitherto we have presupposed and maintained 
that the life of Jesus Christ as such is light, that His being is also 
name, His reality truth, His history revelation, His act Word or 
Logos. We have simply ascribed to Him what the Bible calls glory 
and therefore His prophetic office. On what ground and with what 
right may we do this ? 

Have we merely " ascribed " these things to Him, as many historians think 
that other functions and titles were later ascribed ? Is what we have called the 
light of His life perhaps no more than the light of a " value-judgment " which 
we ourselves bring as we illuminate Him by giving Him a particular significance, 
so that the true source of light is to be sought and found in ourselves, namely, 
in the standard by which we think we can establish what is significant for us, 
and in this way arrive at His only real and objective " significance " ' Is His 
truth perhaps no more than that of a category under which we try to grasp 
the importance of His work ? Is His revelation perhaps only another word for 
the creative insight in which, with reference to and therefore with the help of 
His figure, we achieve awareness of the problem of our own existence, and the 
solution of this problem ? Is His Logos no more than what we regard as the 
ratio of our own life-action ? And therefore at bottom is His prophecy no more 
than the power and authority of our own self-declaration for which we find an 
evident confirmation and to which we lend dignity and weight by understanding 
and describing it as the declaration of this person documented in the Bible, 
investing His declaration with the glory which we really desire for our own "> 
Is this supposed Prophet, who supposedly speaks to us and to whom we supposedly 
listen, any more than a speaker fashioned and instituted by ourselves in order 
that by His imaginary existence we may affirm and strengthen ourselves, yet 
without His really saying or our hearing anything but what we put on His lips 
and thus say to ourselves ? Before we go any further, it is as well that we should 
face this question, which is, of course, only a modification of the old question of 
Ludwig Feuerbach. 

But we must be very careful how we state and try to answer it. 
For in so doing we might easily involve ourselves, or be seduced into, 
an attempted demonstration in the course of which we should deny 
the very thing which we are seeking to prove, falling victim to 
Feuerbach in our very attempt to resist him. 

For who is it who really asks concerning the right and basis of 
our presupposition and assertion that the life of Jesus Christ as such 
has and is this light in which we for our part may and should live, 
that His work is truth which comes to us as such, His history revela- 
tion by which there is made luminous in and to us and our lives that 
which cannot be made luminous of ourselves, that His act is the 
Word of God which is spoken to us from above, which we cannot then 
say to ourselves, but which we can only receive and repeat ? Who 
is it who asks whether Jesus Christ is really the Prophet whom we 
have not produced as such but who summons us, calling us out of 
our pride and sloth and falsehood to fellowship with Himself ? Who 



2. The Light of Life 73 

is it who asks whether it is really the case that in the witness of the 
Old and New Testament we have, not merely an example and analogy 
of the witness which we can give ourselves, but the reproduction 
and propagation of a self-witness which precedes and transcends 
all our self-witness and by which all our self-witness must be orient- 
ated ? Who is it who puts these questions ? If it is ourselves, 
then it is more than likely indeed, it is certain that, whether 
or not we accept these things, our answer will follow the lines laid 
down by that of Feuerbach when he put these questions. For we 
shall obviously be merely " ascribing " to Jesus Christ, in accordance 
with the light given to us or generated by us, the fact that He has 
and is light. But the question which we really ought to put first is 
whether we should decide, whether we are in any way competent, 
whether we can imagine that we have some light of our own which 
constrains and qualifies us, ever to put such questions. Is there any 
place from which we are really able to ask whether Jesus Christ is 
the light, the revelation, the Word, the Prophet ? Is there any place 
where we are really forced to ask this for the sake of the honesty and 
sincerity which we owe ourselves ? To ascribe to ourselves a com- 
petence to put such questions is ipso facto to deny that His life is 
light, His work truth, His history revelation, His act the Word of 
God. The most that we can do in such a case is to " ascribe " these 
things to Him, i.e., to agree that it is so. But this is useless. We may 
do it with great seriousness and zeal. But this does not alter the 
fact that we can ascribe to Him only the majesty which we have 
first ascribed to ourselves by thinking we can and should assign 
ourselves the competence to put such questions. If we really knew 
that we were asking concerning His prophecy, the light of His life, 
the truth of His work, the revelation of His history, the divine Word 
of His act, our questions would be silenced before we ever came to 
'the point of giving them even inward utterance. We should realise 
that we cannot ascribe to ourselves any competence to raise such 
questions. Immunity against the type of answer given by Feuerbach 
to his own questions begins with the recognition that these are 
not our questions and we are quite unfitted to play the role of 
questioners. 

Again, what is it for which we are really asking ? Is it for some 
right and basis of our own on which to presuppose and maintain that 
the life of Jesus Christ is the light in which we can and should live ? 
Is it for an argument to justify our enterprise in our own eyes and 
the eyes of others like us ? Is it for the demonstration that we can 
and should engage in it ? Is it for the kind of demonstration which 
rests on the results of a hazarded comparison of the influences stream- 
ing from the life of Jesus with those shed by the lives of other 
important figures ? Is it for the demonstration of a lack in our 
picture of the world and history which can be filled only by His 



74 69. The Glor y f the 

existence and significance ? Is it for the demonstration of an anthro- 
pological problem to which we can find the answer in Him alone ? Or 
more personally, is it for the confessional demonstration of the direct 
experience which compels us to recognise and proclaim His Word 
as the Word of God ? This kind of demonstration may be sincerely 
meant, and attempted and executed with great skill. But it means 
that we are again hastening towards an answer in the spirit of 
Feuerbach, and on the point of denying the very thing which we are 
trying to demonstrate. Let us suppose that someone does really 
presuppose and maintain that the existence of Jesus Christ is light, 
truth, revelation, Word and glory, and thinks that it is obviously 
reasonable and incumbent to confess this. Can it ever enter his head 
to think that he should justify himself in this matter, adducing proofs 
to convince himself and others, or to assure himself that he is really 
right, that what he does is necessary or at least possible ? Can he 
ever forget that what he does, he does in a freedom which neither 
belongs to him nor is to be won by him, but is given him, so that in 
the use he makes or fails to make of it he is responsible to no other 
court than that to which he owes it, and certainly not to himself ? 
Does he not betray the freedom which he obviously has if he tries 
to demonstrate its validity and basis in any other way than by 
making use of it, i.e., by venturing this assertion and presupposition 
in such sort that he has no other option in the freedom given him ? 
In all the arguments he might bring in favour of his enterprise, does he 
not renounce this very freedom ? Does he not act as though he did 
not have it ? And does he not make incredible and even deny the 
assertion and presupposition from the very outset if in his argumenta- 
tion for its reality or necessity he regards it as an undertaking which 
he must guarantee as though he could have any power to do this ! 
and has thus to produce various reasons in favour of its theme and 
content ? Even more seriously, if he asks concerning such reasons, does 
he not deny and betray the very thing at issue in this presupposition and 
assertion, namely, its theme and content as such ? Let us assume 
that Jesus Christ is the light which lightens every man, the truth 
which affects and convinces every man, the revelation which comes to 
every man, the Word which is spoken to every man. Let us assume 
that He encounters every man in this glory of His and that this is 
the theme and content of the presuppostion and assertion. What 
does it mean, then, if we try to proceed to a historical, philosophical, 
anthropological or psychological investigation and exposition with a 
view to presenting to ourselves or others the fact that the content 
of the presupposition and assertion is right, that Jesus Christ is thus 
a Prophet or the Prophet of God to and for all men, that for such 
and such reasons He must or at least might well be so ? As if perhaps 
He were not, or not at least self-evidently and with axiomatic 
certainty ! What an " as if " ! On this procedure, and the more 



2. The Light of Life 75 

basically the more skilfully we pursue it, do we not declare the very 
opposite of what we intend, namely, that we do not really regard as a 
Prophet the One whom we think we must help in this way, and least 
of all do we regard Him as the Prophet of God ? If we regard Him as 
such, we shall remember that He Himself has shown and proved 
Himself to us as such, that He Himself has spoken to us for Himself, 
so that He does not wait for us to authorise and validate Him as a 
Revealer and Prophet, nor does He need our reasons to bring true 
conviction as to His status. What gives us the freedom to venture 
the presupposition and assertion is simply the sovereignty of the 
Revealer and Prophet, the free shining of His light, the free clarity of 
His truth, this free power of revelation. How, then can we suddenly 
go back on this content, on the event of prophecy ? How can we call it 
in question again in the name of a supposed sincerity and truth ? 
How can we, for our own peace of mind and supposedly to help others, 
support its reality as this event with various arguments ? How can 
we try to prove its certainty or probability by the different con- 
siderations which we adduce ? In so doing, do we not notice that 
we are still speaking, or have begun to speak again, of a very different 
matter, moving right away from the thema probandum by speaking 
of the light of the life of Jesus Christ as though it had never really 
happened ? Do we not notice that we can experience, demonstrate 
and prove the truth of this matter only if we treat it in accordance 
with itself ? It signifies dreadful forgetfulness or confusion in regard 
to the content of the presupposition and assertion if we imagine, or if it 
appears possible or necessary to us, that we can treat the majestic 
declaration of God, of which we appear to speak in what we assume 
and assert, as though it were a little dogma which we had to defend 
against the doubts, suspicions and objections of ourselves and others, 
as is necessary in the case of even the very best and the most pro- 
found and self-evident of our human propositions. Can we ignore the 
fact that this includes a surrender, blaspheming and even negation of 
the divine declaration which, once we are guilty of it, can only make us 
ridiculous, however seriously we ask concerning the basis and validity 
of the declaration ? For what is meant by sincerity or truth in this 
connexion ? Surely not a procedure which means that, to prove the 
truth to be such, we must first treat it as though it were not, and then 
try to recognise it as such when we have found motives for doing so 
other than the fact that it really is the truth ! This is nonsensical. 
It cannot be excused or justified by any psychological, apologetic, 
pedagogic or pastoral intentions, nor by any obligation of scientific 
accuracy. If we think that we are summoned or obliged or even 
compelled to adopt such a procedure, we do better to admit that we 
have not yet heard the voice of truth, or that we hear it no longer, 
so that we are better advised for the moment to occupy ourselves 
with other matters. 



76 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Now there is no doubt that a question is put to us in this respect. 
Nor is it put incidentally, but urgently and centrally. Nor is it put 
in such a way that we can evade responsibility for it, but inescapably, 
so that we cannot proceed with a good conscience without first giving 
our answer. 

But the point is that the question is put to us. It is not that we 
ourselves have the competence, or find ourselves in such a position 
in relation to Christ that we can and even must ask concerning the 
light of His life and the Word of His act. But as His life is light and 
His act Word, as He is the truth, we are asked by Him whether we 
are aware of the fact, whether we realise what we are doing when we 
presuppose and assert that it is so, whether we know the basis and 
authority necessary to legitimate our action if it is not to be futile. 
We may well be ready to take it far too easily and lightly because 
without the necessary legitimation. Perhaps through the influence of 
someone who has made the same assumption and assertion before us, 
and under the impression of the assurance with which he has done 
so, we are surprised into doing it, and then confuse ourselves into 
thinking that we are doing the same as he. This may well happen. 
But this kind of surprise or confusion has nothing whatever to do 
with the light, the revelation of the truth, the Word and prophecy of 
Jesus Christ. On the contrary, it has very much to do with the dark- 
ness of the heart and conscience in which a man can persuade himself, 
even in ultimate opposition to Jesus Christ, that he is really confessing 
Him even though he does not have or know the basis or authority 
for so doing, and therefore does not know what he is venturing and 
doing with this assumption. It may well be granted that the one 
who precedes us with his confession, and so impresses us that we 
feel invited and challenged to follow him, has genuine grounds for 
making it. But this does not mean that we have. If we think that he 
can accept responsibility for answering the question of our basis and 
authority, we have understood him very badly and made poor use of 
his precedent and example. On the other hand, it may be that he 
himself is a poor predecessor, with no legitimation, walking in darkness 
and not in the light of Jesus Christ in spite of his confession. As such 
he can only surprise and confuse us, leading us behind the light instead 
of into it. If he has led us into the light, then necessarily we ourselves 
are asked by the light on what basis and with what authority we 
boast that we may live in it. This does not mean, of course, that 
we are asked whether and to what extent we can justify our under- 
taking to confess Him, or how far we have any aptitude to do this. 
What we are asked is whether and to what extent His life, not in 
others but in ourselves, justifies, confirms and demonstrates itself as 
light, revelation, truth, Word and prophecy. What we are asked is 
whether and to what extent His presence and action give substance 
to our presupposition and assertion that this is so. And who but the 



2. The Light of Life 77 

living Jesus Christ Himself can give them this substance which they 
need as our undertaking and action and without which they can only 
be vain and empty ? But to ask whether He Himself is the motive 
and therefore the legitimation for our confession, presupposition and 
assertion as our own undertaking and action, is something which we 
ourselves certainly cannot do because we have neither the com- 
petence to put this question nor any point from which to judge 
concerning it. On the contrary, when we confess Him, He Himself 
is the One who asks. Hence we do not have to answer ourselves or 
other men ; we have to answer Him. We do not have to give an 
account to ourselves or other men ; we have to give an account to 
Him. And as, reached by His light, participant in His revelation, 
conscious of His truth and encircled by the glory of His prophecy, 
we give an account to Him, not as those who ask but as those who 
are asked, we know what we are doing in confessing Him, and our 
confession achieves the substance, the solidity, the specific weight of 
knowledge, which it must have if it is not to be a futile beating of 
the air. 

Now we have already stated what we are asked. We are certainly 
not asked whence Jesus Christ has that with which to prove that His 
life is light. Nor are we asked how it comes about and is self-evident 
and perspicuous that He can be and is the Revealer of God, the 
Prophet sent by God to us and speaking to us, and therefore in this 
respect, too, the Mediator between God and man. If He were subject 
to this type of question, and an answer could and should first be 
found to it, He would not be the Revealer, Prophet and Mediator. 
If there were any need or ability to prove Him to be such, what is 
to be proved would slip through our fingers. What we are really 
asked by Him is whether we are men in whose lives He has expressed 
and shown Himself as Revealer, Prophet and Mediator. And this 
'means concretely whether we act accordingly ; whether our being, 
thinking, willing and speaking derive their bias and orientation from 
the fact that He has done and still does this, that He is for us light, 
rule, canon and standard, not just theoretically by way of presupposi- 
tion or assertion, but m practice ; whether we do not merely make 
ourselves out to be those who know, or more or less seriously believe 
that we are such, but really exist as such. It is when we do this, 
and in order to do so, that we can and should presuppose and maintain 
that His life is light, and He Himself is the Revealer, Prophet and 
Mediator. If we exist as those who know, we can and should be also 
those who confess. And in this case our confession will not lack 
substance, solidity and weight. Nor will it lack veracity. There will 
then be the desired demonstration of the content of our presupposition 
and assertion, and therefore its establishment and vindication. But 
we really are asked by Him whether we act as those who are " of the 
truth, 11 to use the saying to Pilate in John i8 37 : " Every one that is 



78 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of the truth heareth my voice." He must not, may not and will not, 
then, put any more the question of Pilate : " What is truth ? " He 
no longer has the false freedom to ask for special confirmations of the 
truth from without. Nor does he stand under the false compulsion 
of having to ask for such confirmations. It has of itself confirmed 
itself to him. How, then, can he behave as though this had not 
happened, seeking and enquiring whether the light of the life of Jesus 
Christ which has shone upon him can really be light, and he himself a 
child of light ? He hears His voice, and his only possible question, 
put to him by this voice, is not whether and how this voice will show 
itself to be the voice of truth, but whether and how he himself will 
show himself to be its hearer. It is not self-evident that he will do 
this. For even the man to whom the truth has shown itself to be 
truth, who is thus " of the truth/' and therefore hears the voice of 
Jesus Christ, might very easily deny this in practice by raising again 
the question of Pilate (" What is truth ? ") which he must not and 
may not raise, demanding and seeking other confirmations and thus 
being disobedient to the voice which he hears. But is this necessary ? 
Does he have to deny in practice that he is " of the truth " ? Has this 
impossible thing really to take place ? Surely he might also show 
himself to be a hearer of the voice of Jesus Christ. And what he is 
asked is whether he will do this, whether he will be obedient. Again, 
however, it is not self-evident that he will do this properly. There 
might be a full or only a partial obedience, and therefore a better or 
worse demonstration. The man freed by the truth for the truth 
might make only a partial or halting use of his freedom. His use of 
it might leave much to be desired in the way of clarity and consistency. 
Hence he is not merely asked whether, but also how, he will prove 
himself. Yet however that may be, the question which is put to us 
in respect of our presupposition and assertion that the life of Jesus 
Christ is as such light, truth, revelation, Word and glory, is the 
question of our authentication in face of the fact that He is this, of 
our right conduct in face of the content of this presupposition and 
assertion, of our obedience to the voice of Jesus Christ. To this 
question there can be no possible answer in the spirit and along the 
lines of Feuerbach. 

But supposing we set aside once and for all the threatened tempta- 
tion, what will be the tenor of a sound answer to this question ? What 
is meant by authentication, right conduct and obedience in this 
connexion ? It is obvious that it must be in the whole life of a man 
that the correctness of our presupposition and assertion must be 
seen. We show it as we really allow the life of Jesus Christ to be the 
light of our whole life, and are really prepared to lead our whole 
life in the light of that of Jesus Christ. In the present context, how- 
ever, we can only take into account a comparatively narrow but in 
its way truly significant and decisive sector, namely, how there is to 



2. The Light of Life 79 

be achieved an authenticating, true and obedient thinking and 
speaking in which the content of the presupposition and assertion, 
i.e., that the life of Jesus Christ is as such light, is wholly and evidently 
and consistently honoured, and we show ourselves to be those who 
hear His voice and act in correspondence and not in contradiction 
with this fact. We shall attempt to answer the question in the modest 
field of dogmatic and to that extent theoretical deliberation. But is 
there a Christian practice which does not necessarily have also the 
form of a Christian theory ? Again, is there a Christian theory which 
is not necessarily in itself and as such an element of Christian practice ? 
At any rate, in the deliberations upon which we now enter we have 
to do with a theory which is to be understood only with reference to 
its origin and goal in practice. 

We take as our starting-point the fact that in the life of Jesus 
Christ we deal, not with an indeterminate happening, but with that of 
the presence and action of God. It is for this reason that we say that 
His life is light, truth, revelation, Word, glory ; that it not merely 
might be, but is ; that we not merely suppose that it is, but it is 
indisputably ; that it is so primarily and intrinsically and not just 
secondarily and derivatively. We say this in view of the fact that 
in this life God Himself is present as acting Subject. Our presupposi- 
tion and assertion in respect of this life includes within itself, and has 
as its basis and authority, the statement concerning God that He is 
in Jesus Christ. He was this, and will be. This is why it involves 
such danger and such a betrayal to think that we have to ask some- 
thing, and particularly that we have to ask how we can prove the 
content or occurrence of the prophecy of Jesus Christ to ourselves 
and others. This is why we can see ourselves only as those who are 
asked. If it were not a matter of God, everything would be different. 
But it is a matter of God. Hence we can only see ourselves as those 
,who are asked concerning our acknowledgment and respect, con- 
cerning our praise of God. And there is no place for the false freedom 
or necessity in which we might feel compelled, in face of the life of 
Jesus Christ, and in defiance of its prophecy, to ask concerning its 
authority, putting Pilate's question as to the truth in defiance of the 
truth itself. Where God is present as active Subject ; where He 
lives, as is the case in the life of Jesus Christ, life is not just possibly 
or secondarily but definitely and primarily declaration, and therefore 
light, truth, Word and glory. A mute and obscure God would be an 
idol. The true and living God is eloquent and radiant. If He is in 
large measure mute and obscure to us, this is another matter. In 
Himself, whether we perceive and accept it or not, He is eloquent 
and radiant. He does not merely become this when we perceive and 
accept Him as such. He does not merely become it in His work in 
creation, time and history. If He is eloquent and radiant in creation 
and history, this is on the basis of, and in correspondence with, the 



8o 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

fact that from all eternity He is not merely the Father, but also the 
eternal Word as the Son of the Father, and that in the Son He has 
the reflection of His own glory. Hence it is not accidental or external 
to Him, but essential and proper, to declare Himself. He does this 
as He is God, and lives as such. It is in this glory of God that Jesus 
Christ lives. Now there is no beginning before God, no height above 
Him, no depth beneath Him, no ground outside Him. But as His 
life has no whence or wherefore, so His light and speech have no 
basis or authority, apart from the fact that the life is His life, that 
as such it cannot be concealed but impels and summons to revelation, 
that it wills to be recognised and known as such, that it can be recog- 
nised and known only through itself, and that it is therefore self- 
disclosing life. How could it be deduced from any principle that it is 
self-disclosing and therefore eloquent and radiant ? Even the 
reference which we have ventured to the trimtarian being of God 
cannot be deduced from any principle, but can only describe and explain 
the fact that God Himself and He alone is the principle and source from 
which all that He is, and therefore the fact that He is self-disclosing 
life, does not " derive " as in the case of a logical deduction, but is 
eternally repeated and confirmed in the act of His existence as the 
living God. But it is this life which discloses itself in the act of His 
existence that is lived by Jesus Christ as the Son of God. This is what 
is meant when we call His life light. This is the content of our assump- 
tion and assertion. This is why it is inviolate against every con- 
ceivable doubt or denial. This is why it is equally inviolate against 
all the related demonstrations and confirmations which might try to 
buttress it from without. And if the question is put whether and 
how we can confirm ourselves in this connexion, the first and simple 
answer is that, in full realisation of what we are doing, we are invited 
and summoned by what we assume and assert to consider and take 
seriously the fact that in the life of Jesus Christ we do not have an 
indeterminate happening, but that of the presence and action of God 
Himself ; that we do not have an incidental Word which might be 
spoken or not, but the eternal Word ; that we do not have any light 
which might or might not shine, but the eternal light. If we consider 
this and take it seriously, our conduct will be right, for it will be 
required by the matter itself. We will thus show ourselves to be 
those to whom the truth has confirmed itself as truth, who are " of 
the truth " and children of light. And we may confidently venture 
our presupposition and assertion. We shall do so in legitimate fashion 
Our thema probandum will be directly before our eyes and crystal clear. 
Questions like that of Feuerbach will not be even remotely possible. 
Considering and taking seriously the fact that God is present and 
active, we have renounced all such questioning from the very outset. 
We have not merely ascribed to the life of Jesus Christ, or appended 
to it as a title of dignity on the basis of its value, but really accepted 



2. The Light of Life 81 

as its given reality, the fact that in itself and as such it is prophecy. 
In saying this, we are not advancing a thesis of our own which we 
then have to defend. We are saying it in response to the thesis which 
is unmistakeably and incontrovertibly set before us in the life of 
Jesus Christ as that of God Himself: "I am the light of the 
world/' 

To choose another aspect, we now take as our starting-point the 
fact that the life of Jesus Christ is that of the covenant grace willed 
and determined by God and addressed and given by Him to the man 
for whom and to whom it is active. It is for this reason that we call 
this life light, revelation, Word and glory, with no questions as to 
whether it might be, with no qualms or hesitation, with no sense of 
ascribing attributes, but in the sense of a simple statement concerning 
its essence as this life. Grace, willed and practised by God as His 
action to man, is as such God's self-disclosure and self-impartation as 
it takes place towards man but is grounded in His own divine being. 
It is the choice and act of His own incomprehensible freedom to be 
the Almighty and the Holy One, not only in and for Himself, not 
only in His own transcendence and self-originating life, but also 
beyond this in the depths. In this freedom He is God. He is not 
untrue to Himself but supremely true, the living, almighty and holy 
God, in the fact that He is gracious. He is this to man, in His eternal 
choice to disclose and impart Himself to him, and in the historical 
event in which He does this, on the basis of the fact that to be gracious, 
to disclose and impart Himself, is already His own freedom, the 
freedom of the Father to be in and for Himself, yet not to be only in 
and for Himself, but eternally to disclose and impart Himself in the 
Son, and with the Son in the Holy Ghost. No idea of God, no god 
invented and made by man and exalted to divinity, is gracious in 
himself or to man. The true and living God is gracious. He tran- 
cends Himself. He discloses and imparts Himself. He does this 
first in Himself, and then and on this basis to man in His eternal election 
and its temporal and historical fulfilment. And in the life of Jesus 
Christ we are not dealing with God and His presence and action in 
the abstract, but specifically and concretely with His election and 
act of grace, with the election and act of His characteristically and 
exclusively divine freedom to disclose and impart Himself. Because 
it is the life of grace, it is this eloquent and radiant life. Grace would 
not be grace if it were to remain mute and obscure, or could try to 
be in and for itself alone. It would be a contradiction in terms if it 
did not mean self-disclosure and self-impartation, or were not eloquent 
and radiant. As such, it is indeed eloquent and radiant. As such, 
it is prophecy. This is what is meant when we speak of the prophecy 
of the life of Jesus Christ. Grace is the election and act of God which 
is not to be expected or demanded by man, which cannot be provoked, 
let alone projected or produced by him, but which simply conies to 



82 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

him, which affects and determines him, which is quite undeserved but 
addressed to him without and in spite of his deserving. It is the 
inaccessible thing which " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither 
have entered into the heart of man," but which nevertheless displays 
itself before his eyes, and makes itself heard, and sinks into his heart, 
in virtue of the free work of God Himself. Grace means that God 
expresses Himself before man, declaring Himself as the truth in his 
existence. It means that He causes Himself to be perceived by this one 
who is not His equal, who is merely His creature, and who has wilfully 
closed his eyes and ears and heart to Him. It means the free revela- 
tion of God. This takes place in the life of Jesus Christ. In this life 
it is a matter of God's unmerited good-pleasure, of His free grace, 
and therefore of His free Word to man. What Jesus Christ lives is 
God's self-disclosure and self-impartation as inscrutably grounded 
in His divine sovereignty. It is both the event and the message at 
one and the same time : God among us ; God with us ; and God for 
us. This act and declaration is the content of our assumption and 
assertion that the life of Jesus Christ is light and prophecy. We do 
not venture it arbitrarily or at random, but on the basis of the fact 
that this life is grace, and grace is radiant as such. Hence there is no 
need to establish or justify its radiance from some other point. Indeed, 
all attempts to do this are forbidden. Grace itself, and the light of 
grace, are the election and work of the divine freedom whose action 
is established and justified in itself alone, but in itself unshakeably. 
When grace and its light are present and active, as is the case in the life 
of Jesus Christ, all suspicions and objections against our presupposition 
and assertion are answered before they are even raised or uttered. 
They can arise and have force only when the grace of God and its 
light are not present and active. And if there is one serious question 
in this whole matter, namely, that which its content addresses to us, 
the question of our demonstration in obedience to it, the answer to 
this question, and therefore our demonstration, can consist only in 
the kind of attitude and conduct to the gracious Word spoken in the 
life of Jesus Christ which alone are possible in face of it as the gracious 
Word of God's gracious work. But this means that we can answer it 
only in gratitude and with thought and utterance which express this. 
Our freedom to give thanks, and our freedom in thanksgiving, are the 
consequence corresponding to the divine work and light and Word 
of grace addressed to us in the life of Jesus Christ. But how can we 
give thanks except with the freedom, confidence and joy of confession 
that this light is light, this Word Word, the glory of this life glory ? 
This does not mean any discovery or disclosure on our part. It 
means that we ourselves are discovered and disclosed as those who 
are freed for the gratitude of this confession, who may make use of 
this freedom, and who can make use of it willingly for otherwise it 
would not be freedom. How sad it is that the worthy Feuerbach, 



2. The Light of Life 83 

like so many other unbelievers and believers, seems not to have had 
any knowledge of this freeing and freedom, and thus seems to have 
interpreted the glory of God merely as the self-glorification of man, 
and the light of the life of Jesus Christ merely as the shining of a 
light supposedly immanent in man himself, and finally, therefore, to 
have evaded rather than accepted encounter with it 1 We must be 
careful that we venture our assumption and assertion only in this 
freedom and therefore in grateful thought and utterance. In this 
freedom it not only can and may but will be ventured. And ventured 
in this freedom, it cannot be called in question from any quarter. 

To select a third starting-point, the life of Jesus Christ, even as 
the life of God and the life of His grace, is the life of a man who as 
such, as one of us, as our Fellow, Associate and Neighbour, among the 
countless numbers of men who have lived, live and will live, is this 
particular man, the man who even in our human situation and within 
our human history, has lived and lives and will live this eternal life, 
this Stranger whom we cannot overlook or remove as such because 
as such He is at home among us and like us and with us, belonging as 
we do to our human situation and history. It is because it is the life 
of this Alien who is so utterly at home among us and so fully belongs 
to us, of this near Neighbour even in all His otherness, that this life 
is called light, revelation and Word. As the life of God and His 
grace, it is not lived in a distant height and therefore in mute obscurity ; 
it is concrete event in the sphere in which this is true of our own lives. 
It is placed in this sphere, opposed to us in all its singularity and 
strangeness, yet also set alongside. To be sure, it is new as compared 
with the accustomed realities of this sphere. It stands in marked 
contrast with our own life, or what we regard as such. It radically 
questions all our positions. Yet it is unmistakeably real because, for 
all its difference from ours, it is the life of a man like us : the name 
which is hallowed in our situation, time and history ; the kingdom 
which has drawn near and impinged as it were upon us ; the will of 
God which is done not merely in heaven but on earth. This happening 
has as such a voice. It is a declaration. And as it comes to us, it is 
an address, promise and demand, a question and answer. This is 
what is meant by our presupposition and assertion that in the life of 
Jesus Christ we have to do with a Word and prophecy. As the life 
of God and His grace, it may be perceived and understood by us as it 
has come and comes and will come to us, bearing quite unmistakeably 
our human form. It shines in these specific contours. It is near us 
in these contours. It cannot, then, be confused with any other life. 
It encounters us, speaks with us, addresses us in terms of I and Thou, 
and all in such a way that there can be no doubt concerning either 
the fact that it speaks or the content of what it says, nor any suspicion 
that we might be merely speaking to ourselves. For as the Bearer, 
Bringer and Herald of the life of God and His grace, of eternal life, 



84 69. The Glor y f ihe 

there comes to us Another to speak to us spontaneously and unex- 
pectedly, without any request or requirement on our part. There 
comes to us this other man whose reality is removed, by the fact that 
He speaks, from the sphere in which its possibility might be contested 
or attempts might be made to establish and justify it ; whose reality 
is truth as such. But there is more to it than this. For when this man 
encounters us as the Bearer, Bringer and Herald of this life, something 
happens to us. How do we stand in relation to Him ? We are 
men like Him, and therefore He can encounter us in His reality as 
truth, speaking with us. But we are not like Him in so far as the 
life which He lives is not ours nor that of any other man. For who 
of us lives an eternal life, the life of God, the life of grace ? Con- 
fronted and compared with His life, the life which we live or describe 
as such is only a vacuum and darkness. Is this the case ? It certainly 
needs the confrontation and comparison of our life with His ; it needs 
His encounter with us, to make it clear to us that our life is a vacuum 
and darkness. There is no human understanding in which we are 
finally capable even of the perception, and can be clear and certain, 
that this is so. How can there be ? To achieve even this limiting 
knowledge, we should have to know the very thing which we lack, 
namely, this other eternal life, the life of God and His grace. But 
how can we know this when none of us can live it of himself nor display 
it to others ? How can we even ask concerning it, or miss it ? The 
human situation is doubly critical in the sense that we live in a vacuum 
and darkness but are not even aware that this is so. Our life is not 
in fact that other life. In no single case is this true. Hence we cannot 
know that other life. We cannot ask concerning it nor even miss it. 
Yet this does not alter in the slightest the fact that we do actually 
lack it and therefore live in a vacuum and darkness. But in this 
doubly critical situation we are not abandoned. There encounters us 
at this very point that Fellow, Associate and Neighbour, a man like 
ourselves, whose human life as distinct from ours is eternal life, the 
life of God and His grace, the hallowed name, the kingdom drawn near, 
the will of God done on earth. This means that in His human person 
there encounters us the fulness which invades the vacuum which we 
do not yet know, the light which falls upon the darkness of which we 
are not yet aware. In His person which is not ours this necessarily 
means that there is revealed and made known what is not accessible 
to any self-understanding as such, namely, our being in a vacuum 
and walking in darkness. This is inevitable, for as the life of this 
Stranger the fulness of His life is set in contrast with our emptiness, 
its light with our darkness. And now we cannot fail to see, experience 
and know what we lack, and who and what we are as those who do 
not share in this other life which encounters us. Now we become 
aware of the abyss above which we unsuspectingly moved. But at 
the same time, again in the human life of this human person, we now 



2. The Light of Life 85 

become aware of the fact that we are prevented and delivered from 
plunging into this abyss. For as the Stranger who lives this other 
life He is at home among us. He is not merely set in contrast with 
us, but placed alongside as One of us. He reveals the life of God 
which He lives to be the life of our God, the life of grace to be that 
of the grace which is directed to us and all men, the eternal life that 
of the real life ordained and promised to us. As a life lived for us, 
and clothing and crowning our poor life with the promise of this 
very different one, it is a human life like ours, lived in the midst of 
all other human Life. And it is not the fact that we lack this life, 
but that it is given us in Him, which is the bearing, the true and 
positive meaning, of His encounter with us, the brightness of the 
light which it causes to shine upon us. We cannot forget our being in 
a vacuum and in darkness, for it is radically and unforgettably brought 
before us for the first time in Him. This recollection is a warning 
against any attempts to confirm it of ourselves. For nothing pro- 
duces nothing. Even with the greatest perspicacity, we could produce 
from this vacuum and darkness nothing but further vacuum and 
darkness. Even less, however, can we confirm the fact which we also 
cannot forget simply because it is first and decisively set before us, 
namely, that the life of Jesus Christ is the filling of our vacuum and 
the light of our darkness. It is the fulness of life. As such it shines 
forth. And this shining of the fulness of life of Jesus Christ is the 
content of our presupposition and assertion. We can and must 
venture it as those who prove themselves in this shining. And from 
this standpoint, too, the authentication and obedience consist in the 
fact that we resolutely think and speak as those who have the vacuum 
and darkness of their own lives directly and unforgettably behind 
them and the fulness and light of His life directly, dominatingly and 
convincingly before them. In this transition from the direct past to 
the direct future, in this Now or present, or, as we might say already, 
in this presence of the Spirit, we are " of the truth " and hear the 
voice of the living Jesus. In no form and on no pretext, therefore, 
can we return to the question of Pilate. The good confession of the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ is both legitimate and obligatory for us. 
We can venture it without embarrassment, and need be afraid of no 
Feuerbach. The only thing is that we must not be ashamed to be 
like children. We must see to it that we think and speak in this 
present and not another. 

So much by way of answer to the question which has detained us. 
We can now resume our path and pursue it to the end. 

It might help to a better understanding of our answer if we expressly recall 
that methodologically our line of argument is informed by the true spirit and 
import of the " ontological proof " of Anselm of Canterbury. The point of our 
whole exposition is positively : Credo ut intelligam, and polemically : " The fool 
hath said in his heart, There is no God." As we have put it, the declaration of 



86 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

the prophecy of the life of Jesus Christ is valid as and because it is a declaration 
concerning the life of Jesus Christ. But is not this begging the question ? Are 
we not arguing in a circle ? Exactly ! We have learned from the content of 
our presupposition and assertion, and only from its content, that because it is 
true it is legitimate and obligatory, and in what sense this is the case. Honi 
soit gui mal y pense. Only fools can say in their hearts that this is a circulus 
vitiosus, as though there could not also be, and in this case necessarily is, a 
circulus virtuosus as well. 



We have now laid down our main christological thesis that the 
life of Jesus Christ is as such light and His reconciling work a prophetic 
Word. We have compared this prophecy of His with that of the Old 
Testament prophets and related it to the prophecy of the history of 
Israel as recounted in the Old Testament. We have halted for a 
moment to discover what is the necessary and only possible demon- 
stration of this thesis. 

We must now go on to make an emphasis which is decisive for our 
understanding of the whole. In other words, we must make a con- 
scious because necessary application of the definite article. Jesus 
Christ is the light of life. To underline the " the " is to say that He 
is the one and only light of life. Positively, this means that He is the 
light of life in all its fulness, in perfect adequacy ; and negatively, it 
means that there is no other light of life outside or alongside His, 
outside or alongside the light which He is. Everything which we 
have to say concerning the prophetic office of Jesus Christ rests on 
this emphasis, being distinguished by it, and by the implied delimita- 
tion, from what is also to be said of other prophets, teachers and 
witnesses of the truth, or of the prophecy entrusted to the Christian 
community and each individual Christian. " Jesus Christ as attested 
to us in Holy Scripture is the one Word of God whom we must hear." 

It is for this reason that, instead of devising a new formulation, we have 
chosen as our thesis at the head of this christological section the first statement 
of the Theological Declaration of the Confessional Synod of Barmen in 1934. 
We have already commented on the historical purpose and context of this thesis 
in C.D., II, i, pp. 175 ff., and an important exposition is also to be found in a 
recent book by Ernst Wolf entitled Barmen (1958). In 1934 the time was ripe 
and necessary for confession not only against a very concrete and threatening 
situation, but against a long period of very dubious thought and utterance in 
Protestantism as a whole. There is no need at the moment to speak of the thesis 
as such. It is quoted to remind us of the relevance of the problem which now 
concerns us, and particularly of the emphasis and delimitation that Jesus Christ 
is the one Word of God. In the Declaration it was explained and given greater 
precision by the accompanying antithesis : " We reject the false doctrine that 
the Church can and must, as the source of its proclamation, recognise other 
events and powers, forms and truths, as the revelation of God outside and along- 
side this one Word of God." 

The basis, the first and final meaning, of the statement that the 
life of Jesus Christ is the one and only light may be indicated at once. 



2. The Light of Life 87 

It is this because His life is the one and only life. Naturally, we shall 
have to return to this. Our first task must be to develop, understand 
and estimate the statement as such. 

We may begin by saying that, not only for those who are without 
but initially and constantly for those who have already come to 
faith in Jesus Christ, it is a hard and offensive saying which provokes 
doubt and invites contradiction. It is like a hurdle which has to be 
jumped, and jumped again and again. There are horses which con- 
stantly shy at this hurdle and think they should refuse it. Why should 
we follow only one Prophet ? Why should we not give at least a 
little honour to our own prophecy alongside and in opposition to His ? 

The basis of the saying is to be found in another " hard saying " (Jn. 6 60 ) 
which precedes it, namely, that " except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and 
drink his blood, ye have no life in you " (v. 53). This was said to the " Jews." 
But even many of His disciples regarded and described it as a oKXypos Aoyoy, 
a difficult and even intolerable statement. It evoked muttering and grumbling 
and murmuring (yoyyua/ufc) and oKavbaXov, not only among the Jews, but also 
among them : " Who can hear it ? " Hence what follows cannot fail to give 
fresh offence : " The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are 
life " (v. 63). " From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no 
more with him " (v. 66). Hence, too, the question which Jesus can now put : 
" Will ye also go away ? " (v. 67). And the answer of Peter, which is the Johan- 
nine counterpart to the Messianic confession of Mt. i6 16 , is anything but self- 
evident, bearing witness to the way in which the disciples overcame an offence 
which they also had experienced : " Lord, to whom shall we go ? thou hast the 
words of eternal life " (v. 68). 

The whole difficulty would be removed if we could be content with 
the mere assertion that Jesus Christ is one light of life, one word of 
God : the clearest perhaps ; a particularly important one, and of 
great urgency for us ; but only one of the many testimonies to the 
truth which have been given by others and which have also to be 
studied and assessed together with His. In short, it could be accepted 
that He is a great prophet. This could be easily received, and perhaps 
even with great willingness and readiness. It could be warmly and 
enthusiastically championed. Many cogent arguments could be found 
for it. It need not be disputed by the modern Synagogue. It is 
actually stated in the Koran. It can be accepted by Western 
Idealism. With this message we need not expose or compromise 
ourselves, or provoke suspicion or unpopularity, or give offence to any- 
one, least of all to ourselves. Noble rivalry or peaceful co-existence 
is possible with whose who prefer other lights of life or words of God. 
And, of course, we maintain our own liberty to hear other such words 
as well, and perhaps even to prefer them. 

But supposing that we cannot be content with this ? Supposing 
that the explicit or implicit meaning of the confession of Jesus Christ 
is that Thou hast the words of eternal life, Thou alone and no other 
(for there are no others to whom we may go), Thou alone not merely 



88 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

for me but for all others and all men, yet Thou particularly for me, 
so that I have no option but to hear these words from Thee ? Suppos- 
ing that the confession excludes as quite illegitimate and prohibited 
the free and friendly acceptance of many lights of life and words of 
God among which that spoken by Thee is only one ? Supposing that 
the freedom of the confession consists in thinking and speaking in 
this way ? What will happen when a Christian or the community 
or theology makes use of this freedom ? 

The objection to it, and therefore to the statement that Jesus 
Christ is the one Word of God, is quite obvious even to those who 
confess it. It has maintained a kind of eternal youth throughout the 
centuries. And because it does not come upon the Christian only from 
without, but first and supremely from within, the same is true of the 
more or less serious attempts made even by the Church and Christianity 
to suppress this statement, or at least to evade it, to let it drop. Such 
attempts have always been thought to be necessary and justifiable 
even within Christianity, and therefore there will always be a future 
for them. 

In what time or place has not the world in its confrontation by the Church 
finally and basically taken offence at this statement, anxiously or scornfully or 
defiantly putting to the Church the question whether the confession of Jesus is 
really to be understood so narrowly or His prophecy so exclusively ? In what 
time or place has not the political, social, apologetic or even evangelistic and 
missionary situation openly cried out for the removal of this offence and there- 
fore the concealment of this statement, or its dilution by others, or even its 
abandonment ? Even in Roman Catholicism the insight has never been com- 
pletely lost that this must not take place, but that a genuine attestation and 
proclamation of Jesus Christ in the world stands or falls with the implicit and 
sometimes explicit confession of this dangerous statement. Yet the Roman 
Catholic system, as developed with remarkable consistency throughout the 
centuries and still maintained against all attempts at reform, is not really based 
upon this insight or this confession. On the contrary, it is a system of evasion 
of confession. It is the great attempt to secure the existence of the Church in 
the world by a comprehensive combination of the truth of Jesus Christ with 
other comparatively independent truths, such as those concerning Mary, tradition 
and the teaching office in a first class, the truths of nature and reason in a second, 
and various political truths in a third and fourth, the essential statement being 
put under a bushel instead of on a candlestick. At this cost it is possible for the 
Church and Christians partially and temporarily at least, i.e , to the extent and 
so long as the revolutionary force of the statement does not reassert itself, to 
avoid the offence of their existence and thus to escape the assaults which come 
upon them from without, and primarily rather than finally from within. But 
this reference to the Roman Catholic system has only incidental significance. 
It is no more than a single example. For at all times the Church and Christians 
have been tempted, and exposed to the temptation, to pay this price. How 
vulnerable they are if they do not pay it but dare to stand, or if through all their 
attempts at concealment there shines through in their lives the truth that the 
meaning and content of their confession of Jesus Chnst is that He is not merely a 
prophet, not merely a great or the greatest, but the Prophet ! When this is what 
it means, and explicitly or implicitly says, the Church speaks and acts as His 
community in the world. And when this is what Christians mean and say, they 



2. The Light of Life 89 

prove themselves to be what their name declares, confessing the shame of Christ 
and undertaking the whole burden of His and their foreignness in the world and 
in their own hearts Nothing is more natural than the desire to escape this. It 
is another matter that it cannot be done We do well to realise that the desire 
itself is always imminent, and that it cannot easily be suppressed. 

The objection to this statement can take many different forms. 
Basically, it will always consist in the reproach that it involves an 
unjustifiable act of caprice. What inexcusable presumption it is to 
say that we can and must regard and proclaim Jesus Christ not merely 
as One among many witnesses for the truth (which is quite legitimate), 
nor even as One who occupies a privileged or even leading place 
among these witnesses (which might be allowed), nor even as One 
who is normative for us personally (which is still tolerable), but as 
the one and only Witness confronting all men with an absolute claim 
to allegiance ! What right have we to go before our fellows with a 
claim of this nature, however tacitly or indirectly ? What authority 
have we to set ourselves above all others who think they know other- 
wise ? From what exalted place do we think we can violate them 
with this kind of demand ? We have to realise that in making this 
statement we expose ourselves to this reproach. And inevitably in 
so doing we feel uncomfortable, secretly making the same reproach 
against ourselves, feeling its force and effects and wishing that we 
could evade the necessity of making the statement. The point of the 
reproach will be only too obvious. On the intellectual and aesthetic 
side it will be to the effect that it is obscurantist, that it attests and 
fosters a sorry restriction of the field of vision of human knowledge, 
and an impoverishment of thought in relation to the plenitude of 
phenomena, forms and ideas which obviously encounter man and 
forcefully speak to him, by the demand that one of them should be 
declared to be divinely and humanly normative, and that this norma- 
tiveness should be denied to all the rest. On the moral side it will be 
to the effect that in its arrogance it makes quite impossible the dis- 
cussion and interchange between those who champion it and those 
who cannot or will not accept it, that it leads to the breakdown of 
communication and even in the last resort of fellowship between 
Christians and non-Christians, and that it implies for its champions 
an unfitting bondage and constriction. In other words, it is an un- 
friendly and quarrelsome and evil principle from whose representatives 
we can only turn away angered and sorrowed by their hardness of 
heart and deeply bewailing their self -isolation. Politically, it will be 
to the effect that it is the proclamation of unconcealed intolerance and 
therefore an intolerable disruption of the co-existence of men of 
different outlooks and confessions in state and society, signifying either 
secretly or quite blatantly a radical attack on the freedom of conscience 
and therefore the potential, and basically already actual, principle of 
the repression and persecution of those who think or believe differently, 



go 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

with all the accompanying horrors of burnings, religious wars, crusades 
and similar procedures. And in the background there rolls the ominous 
question whether those who champion this statement are not to be 
regarded as pace-makers for totalitarianism. We need hardly say 
more for the moment. But if we are prepared not to suppress or 
evade but to champion this statement, we do well to reckon with the 
fact that all these charges will be brought against us, and that there 
will be in ourselves an inner voice speaking and arguing and remon- 
strating along these lines. We do well to realise how great the tempta- 
tion has been, and still is, either to suppress the statement altogether or 
to render it so innocuous that it no longer says what it purports to say. 

But we have no option in this matter. Christian freedom is really 
the freedom of the confession of Jesus Christ as the one and only 
Prophet, light of life, and Word of God. It stands or falls by whether 
it is freedom for this confession. In the exercise of this freedom, in 
which it has its origin, the statement can and should be explained 
and established, and it cannot be suppressed or rendered innocuous. 

To be sure, it does not need to be expressly reproduced and 
emphasised in every Christian declaration. 

In the earliest of the great symbols it is explicitly made only in the form of 
the Fihus Dei umcus. In the Greek version the original els icvpios is strengthened 
by the description of Jesus Christ as the vlos TOV Bcov /xwoyevifc a phrase which 
was taken from Jn i 18 and which passed into the creeds of 325 and 381. It is 
only implied in the other articles. 

Yet it is the common denominator which is accepted in every 
Christian statement, which marks every such statement as binding 
and urgent, and the ignoring or obscuring of which causes all such 
statements to lose their specific weight. It is certainly fashioned and 
proclaimed arbitrarily, and therefore exposed to reproach, if it is 
related to the position or opinion or intention of the man who re- 
presents it, or to the plans and enterprises and teachings and institu- 
tions of the Christian Church as a fellowship of such men, being thus 
used to declare the absoluteness of this or that form of what is called 
Christianity or the Church. It is almost inevitable that in the first 
instance the world will always hear and understand it in this sense. 
What else can it gather from it but that there are strange people who 
think that their opinions, convictions and beliefs, and the acceptance 
of their religious society and tradition, are the only possible and 
legitimate choice ? How can it help resisting this ? It would not be 
the world, but already the community, if it were in a position to 
receive and interpret it differently. If we are going to represent and 
champion it, we must see to it that we do so with a clear conscience, 
that we do not intend or proclaim it with the intention of absolutising 
our own Christian subjectivity or that of the Church and its tradition, 
and that we do not therefore give good cause for the reproach which it 



2. The Light of Life 91 

encounters. Even more, we must see to it that we quietly understand 
as such the reproach which it necessarily encounters, and are not 
disconcerted by this reproach. For it rests on a supreme misunder- 
standing. The statement that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God 
has really nothing whatever to do with the arbitrary exaltation and 
self-glorification of the Christian in relation to other men, of the 
Church in relation to other institutions, or of Christianity in relation 
to other conceptions. 

It is a christological statement. It looks away from non-Christian 
and Christian alike to the One who sovereignly confronts and precedes 
both as the Prophet. As Jesus Christ is its content, the one who 
confesses it in no sense marks himself off from those who do not. In 
face of what it says, not concerning Christians or the Church or Christ- 
ianity, but concerning Christ, he is in solidarity with them. In dis- 
tinction from others, he may and must know and declare that in 
the matter of Jesus Christ both he and they are confronted by the 
one truth superior to both him and them. Thus the criticism expressed 
in the exclusiveness of the statement affects, limits and relativises the 
prophecy of Christians and the Church no less than the many other 
prophecies, lights and words relativised and replaced by it. It says 
first and supremely that in relationship to His own community and 
all its members Jesus Christ is the One to whom it must in no cir- 
cumstances oppose with any degree of sovereignty its own Christian 
prophecy, teaching and testimony to the truth. What it says con- 
cerning the impotence of all other prophecy which attempts to rival 
its own is valid only in analogy to, and in consequence of, the fact 
that first and supremely it is true of the Christian sphere. It cannot, 
then, be legitimately advanced and stated except as the men who 
live in this sphere submit themselves first, with all their Christian 
views and concepts, dogmas and institutions, customs, traditions and 
.innovations, to the relativisation and criticism which come through 
Jesus Christ as the one light of life. The judgment on the world 
indicated in this statement begins in " the house of God " (i Pet. 4"), 
and it is from there that it spreads to embrace the world around. 

But as the community itself submits to it, it cannot cease attesting 
it to all. For it has not found or fashioned for itself this statement 
which its witness declares. It does not exalt or glorify itself in making 
it. As it bows before the One who alone has authority and alone is 
the light and truth and Word of God, it declares itself. As it accepts 
solidarity with all others, and thus brings them into solidarity with 
it, it brings to them, too, the promise and criticism of this statement. 
Arbitrary though it may sound, therefore, the statement is not really 
arbitrary. The consequent opposition to it is thus irrelevant. The 
only necessary concern of the community and Christians is that they 
do not make it in any other way but in the submission and humility 
enjoined upon them, too, by what it says. If this is the case, they 



92 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

should not allow anyone or anything to deflect or hinder them from 
making it either directly or indirectly. It would be illegitimate and 
arbitrary to suppress or deny it. The thing itself, and their own 
existence in its service, demand that they should not merely recognise 
but confess and declare it. 

That this is demanded of Christians, or better that they have the 
freedom to do it, is first learned quite simply from the biblical witness. 
The statement that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God is one which 
we could not venture on our own authority or responsibility without 
justly exposing ourselves to the reproach of arrogant prejudice. In 
such a case, it could be hazarded only with a final anxiety for which 
there is good cause, and it could not be pronounced with any degree 
of conviction. Much Christian anxiety in face of this reproach would 
disappear of itself, however, if we remembered that as Christians we 
are not summoned or committed to thinking and speaking on our 
own authority and responsibility, but kept modestly yet steadfastly 
to the direction of Holy Scripture. It is not a matter of appropriating 
isolated biblical notions or teachings. But it is a matter of following 
independently yet loyally the Old and New Testament witness in an 
attempt to adopt its mode of thought as that which is normative for 
the Christian community, applying ourselves to learn to think in this 
mode. Now by " mode of thought " we simply mean the character and 
style determined by the theme of its witness, the structures underlying 
its records, speeches, prayers and other utterances. One example is 
the circulus virtuosus in which it always moves in the matter of 
truth. Another is the self-evident way in which both the Old and New 
Testament witnesses with equal distinctness count upon and take 
quite seriously the uniqueness and therefore the absolute normative- 
ness of the revelation imparted to and attested by them. The prophets 
and apostles do not squint away from but look steadily at the one 
thing which it always repays us to consider. They do not engage in 
the uneasy movements of those who try to hear one thing with one 
ear and another with the other, and would try to hear a thousand 
things if they had a thousand ears. They listen quietly because the 
one thing which they hear is enough. And as they concentrate upon 
this one thing they think and speak accordingly. This prophetic and 
apostolic mode of thought is the norm in the Canon of Holy Scripture. 
Applied in detail, it is the school where we are taught how the state- 
ment that Jesus Christ is the one Word of God is to be properly 
understood and legitimately made. As we go to this school, we learn 
to think and make it humbly yet boldly before God and man. We also 
learn to avoid lascivious squinting and eavesdropping in other direc- 
tions, and to rid ourselves of all anxiety in thinking and making it. 

The fact that around Israel there were other nations with other 
histories, religions, pieties, orders and divinities was just as well 
known to the prophets as is to us the fact that in the world in which 



2. The Light of Life 93 

we live there are other conceptions than the Christian and other 
explicit or implicit confessions than that of Jesus Christ. But to 
the best of my knowledge there is not a single word in any of the 
prophets to indicate that this fact made any impression on them, nor 
any single trace of the notion of a plurality of divine revelations among 
which the action and speech of Yahweh in the history of Israel is 
thought to be one of many to which validity might be ascribed. 
Similarly, the Evangelists and apostles of the New Testament, as we 
see from their language and terminology, were very well aware of the 
multiplicity of religious, cultic and doctrinal systems characteristic of 
the world to which they went with their message of Jesus of Nazareth. 
But to my knowledge there is not a single indication in the New 
Testament that its authors understood or respected these systems 
either individually or as a whole as alternatives to the Gospel pro- 
claimed by them, or that they thought of themselves, as the 2nd 
century Apologists were so soon to do, as engaged in rivalry and 
debate with the representatives of these systems. When they speak 
and write, everything of this sort is already behind them ; it is not a 
problem or task confronting them. From the point where they start 
there can be no thought of wrestling with strange and in some sense 
perhaps impressive and normative conceptions of God and the world. 
As there can be no other sons of God, so there can be no other lords 
nor witnesses to the truth apart from or side by side with Jesus Christ. 
If such authorities enter their field of vision, as in the form of angelic 
or demonic powers, it is always in relation to the picture of the crucified 
and risen Jesus Christ, who is their Lord and Victor and to whom 
they are ordered and subordinated, so that even at very best they 
cannot be more than naughts which are set behind Him as the digit 
" one." As the history of Israel speaks in the Old Testament, and 
that of Jesus Christ in the New, the decision is made that other divine 
, pronouncements, no matter where they come from or however they 
might be grounded or intended, are not to be heard or taken seriously 
as independent utterances, and can have no claim to our trust or 
obedience. And with this decision there is also taken the decision 
that the men of the New Testament must accept this, or that they 
must represent and attest to the men of all nations the sole authority 
of the Word of God spoken in the history of Jesus Christ and con- 
ducting the history of Israel to its goal. 

Quite apart from the content of their witness, the mere fact that 
the biblical witnesses stand under this determination is an element 
in their mode of thought. In this framework the statement is so 
self-evident that only with relative infrequency does it need to be 
explicitly formulated and pronounced. 

By way of illustration I will first choose a passage in which this is not done, 
but in which the point at issue is the more plainly visible. I refer to the famous 
introduction to the Epistle to the Hebrews (i 1 '*)- This passage speaks expressly 



94 9 6 - The Glory f ihe Mediator 

of Jesus Christ, yet in such a way that for all the differences the revelation which 
has taken place in Him is seen as a unity with that which has taken place in the 
history of Israel. " God (o 0c6s), who at sundry times and in divers manners 
(iroXvfjupws KOI TroAur/xbrcos) spake in time past (TroAcu) unto the fathers by the 
prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son." It is on the basis 
and within the framework of our presupposition that the author of Hebrews 
thinks and speaks. He does not think it necessary to emphasise that this is so. 
The whole Epistle which opens with these words bears ample testimony. And 
is it not actually stated in these opening words ? We obviously have a closed 
circle in God's speaking, and the fathers and ourselves as those to whom He 
speaks. The fact that God spoke once and then again is the one centre beside 
which there can be no other. The content of the subordinate or participle clause 
(XaXrfaas) is that He spake in time past. The content of the mam clause (cAoAT/crev) 
is that He spoke again at the end of the " time past/' on the last of the days in 
which His former speaking began. He spoke in the one whole time which is 
determined and filled by His speaking and therefore absolutely unique. He 
first did it on many occasions and in many ways. He now did it once and in 
one way alone. The fact that He did it in this irreversible sequence means that 
He did it with an unmistakeable sharpening and an emerging weight and definit- 
iveness, even the manifoldness of His former speaking being determined and 
revealed as a unity by the singleness and simplicity of the conclusion. He first 
spoke to the fathers through the prophets, but now He spoke through the Son, 
through the One promised to the former and fulfilling this promise. Again, the 
circle of Old Testament expectation and New Testament recollection is for the 
author of the Epistle a closed one outside of which there cannot be considered, 
nor is there to be expected, any other speaking on the part of God. 

At the same time, there are also passages in which this biblical 
mode of thought finds expression in explicit statements concerning 
the uniqueness and exclusiveness of the one Word of God announced 
in the Old Testament and proclaimed in the New. 

In the Old Testament we think first of the remarkable passage in Deut. 
xgiB-2*. its most important saying played a very important role, although in 
the form of a rather over-simplified exposition, in the scriptural proof adduced 
by the older dogmatics for the prophetic office of Jesus Christ. What is at 
issue, as stated by Moses, is Israel's distinction from the Canaamtc peoples 
which " hearken unto observers of times, and unto diviners." Because they 
do this, they will be driven out by Israel. But " thou shalt be perfect with the 
Lord thy God " (v. 13). He " hath not suffered thee so to do " (v. 14). And 
then : " The Lord thy God will raise up unto thee (that is to say, continually) 
a Prophet (that is to say, one prophet after another) from the midst of thee, of 
thy brethren, like unto me ; unto him ye shall hearken " (v. 15). The statement 
is repeated as a direct saying of Yahweh Himself in v. 18 : "I will (continually) 
raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will 
(continually) put my words in his mouth ; and he shall (continually) speak 
unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that who- 
soever will not hearken unto my words which he shall (continually) speak in 
my name, I will require it of him." In rather a different sense from that of the 
older exegesis, the passage is truly Messianic if we refer it to the whole series 
of prophets who each in his own age and situation were authorised by Yahweh 
and thus fulfilled the office of Moses, and therefore if we refer it to the continually 
articulated voice of the prophetic history of Israel in its totality. These true 
prophets are then (i8 aw - and cf. I3 1 '*) distinguished from false prophets like the 
mantles of the Canaanites. The latter can speak in the name of Yahweh but can- 
not say what He has told them to say. They can thus speak in the name of other 



2. The Light of Life 95 

gods and demand that they should be recognised and worshipped : " Let us 
go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them " (13*). 
And it may even be that then* words will be accompanied by signs and wonders 
(v. i). Yet they will obviously lack any true content from the standpoint of 
salvation history, and will thus reveal that they are not really the Word of God 
(i8" f -)- Between the true and false prophets there is undoubtedly a yawning 
gulf, with no fellowship nor even the possibility of comparison. " Thou shalt 
not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams " (13*). 
" He hath spoken . . . presumptuously : thou shalt not be afraid of him " (18"). 
And even more sharply : " And that prophet, or dreamer of dreams, shall be 
put to death ; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your 
God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the 
house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the Lord thy God com- 
manded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee " 
(13*, cf. 18"). 

The command of i8 15 : " Unto him ye shall hearken," is expressly taken up 
in the New Testament (Mk. g 7 and par.) in the account of the voice from the 
cloud at the transfiguration. The fact that Jesus is the beloved Son and there- 
fore the object of the divine cuSo/a'a, as we are told already in the story of His 
baptism, is here equated with the command : OLKOVCTC avrov. The formula 
reminds us of the whole seriousness and weight of the distinction made in Deut. 
1 8 between true prophets and false. The same thought lies behind the " to whom 
shall we go ? " of Jn. 6 M . But it is also to be found in the warning addressed 
to the community in Mt. 23"- : " But be not ye called Rabbi, father, master : 
for one is your Master ; one is your Father, which is in heaven ; one is your 
Master, even Christ." We may also think of the prophecy in Mk. 13* and par. 
that many will come in the name of Jesus Christ with the message and claim : 
&ya> CI/LU. He alone according to John io sf - is the Shepherd whose voice His sheep 
hear, who calls and leads them out by name, and whom they follow when they 
hear His voice. " And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him : 
for they know not the voice of strangers." And then again in v. 16 : " Other 
sheep I have, which are not of this fold (i e., which do not belong to the Israel 
to whom I speak in the first instance) : them also I must bring, and they shall 
hear my voice ; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." The offence in 
this parable (napoifua), particularly in the contrasting of the one Shepherd with 
strangers who are described as " thieves and robbers " or " hirelings," is not 
concealed in Jn. 10 : " They understood not what things they were which he 
/ spake unto them " (v. 6). Nor is it removed but aggravated by the claim in 
v. ii : "I am the good shepherd." This, and everything which underlies the 
eyoi, seems to raise up a axtyia among the Jews (v. 19). Can Jesus say this ? 
" He hath a devil, and is mad." Or must He say it ? " These are not the words 
of him which hath a devil " The healing of the man born blind had preceded. 
Has this not validated the claim of Jesus to be the Shepherd whose voice must 
be heard in contrast to all others ? The drift of the story is plain. Jesus has 
authority to make this claim to an exclusive hearing. In and with His existence 
He rightly advances and emphatically exercises and successfully presses this 
claim. Hence Ac. 4" : " For there is none other name under heaven given 
among men, whereby we must be saved." Hence, too, i Cor. 2 2 : " For I deter- 
mined (cKptva) not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and him 
crucified." 

It is thus incumbent, not that we should merely repeat these or 
similar biblical texts, but that we should so enter into the biblical 
mode of thought which underlies and is expressed in them that the 
thesis of the uniqueness of the prophecy of Jesus Christ impresses 



96 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

itself upon us as no less self-evident than it is presupposed and some- 
times stated to be in Holy Scripture. But if we do this, this means 
that we shall be guided by the direction of Holy Scripture, that we 
shall not have to champion the thesis in our own strength or on our 
own responsibility, and that we may thus champion it without anxiety 
because it is not really exposed to the charge of arbitrariness. There 
can be no question, however, of merely learning a clever trick of 
thought. The distinctive thought-form of the Bible is not sometlu'ng 
which is discovered in that way ; it is demanded, enforced and indeed 
created by that which is attested, namely, by the lordship of Jesus 
Christ Himself. Hence we have first and foremost to allow ourselves 
to be confronted by Him through the biblical witnesses in order to 
learn from the latter, as from older and more experienced fellow- 
students, how we shall think and speak as those who are confronted 
by Him. This and this alone is the way in which we can be freed 
for the fruitful venture of the statement that He is the one Word 
of God. 

We shall now try (i) to understand its more precise meaning by 
distinguishing what it actually says from what it does not say. 

We maintain that it is a christological statement, i.e., a declaration 
concerning Jesus Christ. It cannot be referred to any other subject. 
It says of Jesus Christ, announced in the Old Testament and pro- 
claimed in the New, that He is the one Word of God. But it says 
this of Him alone. There is direct witness to Jesus Christ m the 
words of the prophets and apostles. In the Bible Jesus Christ declares 
Himself to be the one Word of God. But the Bible as such is not 
the one Word of God. Indirect witness is also borne to Jesus Christ 
in the message, activity and life of the Christian Church, whose whole 
raison d'etre is to make Him known as the one Word of God. Again, 
however, the Church and its doctrine, instruction, worship and whole 
existence is not the one Word of God. Moreover, there is a history of 
the gifts and operations of Jesus Christ, and many histories of groups 
and individuals determined by Him. But neither the history as a 
whole, nor any one history in particular, is the one Word of God. 
Jesus Christ shares the uniqueness of God as the Creator of His 
creatures, the Lord of all His servants, the Doer of all His works, 
the Giver of all His gifts. He does this even in the luminous sphere 
in which His attestation takes place and His impulses are in some 
way visible. He stands alone in face of every light which shines in 
this sphere. And this is even more true, of course, in the outside 
sphere where this witness does not take place and these impulses are 
not seen. The positive thing to be noted is that, even though it is 
perhaps incontestable that there are real lights of life and words of 
God in this sphere too, He alone is the Word of God even here, and 
these lights shine only because of the shining of none other light 
than His. 



2. The Light of Life 97 

We recognise that the fact that Jesus Christ is the one Word of 
God does not mean that in the Bible, the Church and the world there 
are not other words which are quite notable in their way, other lights 
which are quite clear and other revelations which are quite real. We 
may think of the prophets in the Old Testament and the apostles in 
the New. We may think of the genuine prophecy and apostolate 
of the Church. And why should not the world have its varied prophets 
and apostles in different degrees ? As the Bible attests the one Word 
of God, and to the extent that the Church adopts and repeats this 
testimony, important human words are spoken, bright lights are set 
up in the human sphere and great and little revelations occur. Nor 
does it follow from our statement that every word spoken outside 
the circle of the Bible and the Church is a word of false prophecy and 
therefore valueless, empty and corrupt, that all the lights which rise 
and shine in this outer sphere are misleading and all the revelations 
arc necessarily untrue. Our statement is simply to the effect that 
Jesus Christ is the one and only Word of God, that He alone is the 
light of God and the revelation of God. It is in this sense that it 
delimits all other words, lights, revelations, prophecies and apostolates, 
whether of the Bible, the Church or the world, by what is declared 
in and with the existence of Jesus Christ. The biblical prophets and 
apostles are His servants, ambassadors and witnesses, so that even in 
their humanity the words spoken by them cannot fail to be words 
of great seriousness, profound comfort and supreme wisdom. And if 
the Church follows the biblical prophets and apostles, similar words 
are surely to be expected of it Nor is it impossible that words of this 
kind should be uttered outside this circle if the whole world of creation 
and history is the realm of the lordship of the God at whose right 
hand Jesus Christ is seated, so that He exercises authority in this 
outer as well as the inner sphere and is free to attest Himself or to 
cause Himself to be attested in it. That there are such words in the 
inner sphere could be contested only if we were prepared to question 
the presence and activity of Jesus Christ in the work of His witnesses 
and that of the Church which follows them. And their existence in 
the outer sphere could be disputed only if we were to challenge the 
preservation and overruling of the world by the God who has given 
all things into the hands of the Son. In both spheres there are human 
words which are good because they are spoken with the commission 
and in the service of God. In both spheres there are words which are 
illuminating and helpful to the degree that God Himself gives it to 
them to be illuminating and helpful as such words. We live by the 
fact that we may continually hear good words of this kind in the 
Bible, the Church and the world. 

What we have to contest, however, is that any one of such good 
words in itself and as such is the Word of God, or can be set beside the 
Word spoken by God Himself, i.e., Jesus Christ, either by way of 
C.D. iv.-m.-i. 4 



98 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

supplement or even to crowd Him out and replace Him. The Word 
of God is His eternal Word which is incomparably and absolutely 
good and serious and comforting and wise in the fact that it is spoken 
to us directly by God Himself. As such it does not merely say some- 
thing valid, but that which is absolutely valid ; it does not merely say 
something which is secondarily useful, but that which is primarily 
good ; it does not merely say that which is provisionally correct, but 
that which is definitively true. It is not merely an offer and introduc- 
tion, but creates and renews even as it is pronounced and received. 
It does not merely instruct a man, or entangle him in discussion, but 
transforms him. It decides concerning him. It blesses him even as 
it also judges. It frees him unconditionally yet also binds uncon- 
ditionally. It is the Word which we must trust and obey in life and 
death. It is the light of life. Where this Word is heard and received, 
but there alone, the Word of God is present. No human word, even 
if it is spoken with God's commission and in God's service, can as 
such speak in this way or say or accomplish these things. God's 
direct presence is needed for this. God Himself must come and 
speak. As He does so, and utters His own Word, this cannot be co- 
ordinated or compared with any human word : not even the most 
lofty or profound ; not even the most illuminating and helpful ; not 
even that which is spoken with His commission and in His service. 
But God does speak. What takes place in the existence of Jesus 
Christ as the true Son of God who is also the true Son of Man is that 
God Himself is present in person and speaks this Word which cannot 
be co-ordinated or compared with any human word. It is for this 
reason and in this sense that Jesus is the one and only Word of God. 
He is not the only word, nor even the only good word. But He is the 
only Word which, because it is spoken directly by God Himself, is 
good as God is, has the authority and power of God and is to be heard 
as God Himself. He is the only Word which all human words, even the 
best, can only directly or indirectly attest but not repeat or replace 
or rival, so that their own goodness and authority are to be measured 
by whether or not, and with what fidelity, they are witnesses of this 
one Word. 

If we regard and address Jesus as a StSaowaAos dya06s, then according to 
Mk. io 17f - and par. we must ask ourselves if we really know what we are doing : 
" Why callest thou me good ? there is none good but one, that is, God." In 
other words, in Him we must let ourselves be confronted by the majesty and 
the total claim of the one God and His command. Was the man who addressed 
Him in this way prepared and equipped for the fact that in Him he had to do with 
the one " good Master " ? The passage tells us that he was not. Jesus " loved " 
this man (v. 21). But " he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved : 
for he had great possessions." In face of what it entailed, he could not and would 
not love Jesus as God, and therefore as his one and only and eternal good. 
Similarly, the scribes (Mk. 2 Bf * and par.) who regarded as blasphemy the remission 
pronounced to the lame man at Capernaum were materially quite right : " Who 



2. The Light of Life 99 

can forgive sins but God only ? " If it were not blasphemy, what Jesus said 
to the lame man could really be said only by the one God. The one Jesus thus 
says what only the one God can say. That He, the Son of Man, has the authority 
and power to say this is demonstrated and confirmed, however, by the fact 
that in an addition to the saying He commands the man to arise, take up his 
bed and walk. Similarly, in i Cor. 8 6f - Paul brings together the " one God, the 
Father, of whom are all things, and we in him," and the " one Lord Jesus Christ, 
by whom are all things, and we by him." And, seeing Them together in this 
way, he advances against the incontestable existence of so-called gods and lords 
in heaven and earth the statement which is quite decisive for the question of 
idol-meats, namely, that there is no true ei8o>Aov in the world, and that ovScts 
Ocos ei HT) efc. The same conjunction is found in i Tim. 2 6 , where we read 
that " there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man 
Christ Jesus." This time it is set in a positive context. Because this is the case, 
God " will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the 
truth " (v. 4). This is the basis of the witness in the service of which Paul knows 
that he is ordained " a teacher of the Gentiles " and therefore a herald and 
apostle to the heathen. Again, in Rom. 3 29f - the statement els 6 Bcos is intro- 
duced to prove the assertion that God is the God of the Gentiles as well 
as the Jews, and the context makes it plain that here, too, the theological 
els has its root and presupposition as well as its upshot and fulfilment in the 
chnstological. 

In sum, our statement distinguishes the Word spoken in the 
existence of Jesus Christ from all others as the Word of God. When 
we think of these others, we do well to include even the human words 
spoken in the existence and witness of the men of the Bible and the 
Church. In distinction from all these, Jesus Christ is the one Word 
of God. There are other words which are good in their own way and 
measure. There are other prophets in this sense. We shall return to 
this point. But there is only one Prophet who speaks the Word 
of God as He is Himself this Word, and this One is called and is 
Jesus. This is the substance of our statement, no more but also no 
less. 

We shall now try (2) to fix its more precise meaning by describing 
what it actually says. That Jesus is the one Word of God means 
first that He is the total and complete declaration of God concerning 
Himself and the men whom He addresses in His Word. God does 
satisfaction both to Himself and us in what He says in and with the 
existence of Jesus Christ. What He is for us and wills of us, but also 
what we are for Him and are ordained to be and will and do in this 
relationship, is exhaustively, unreservedly and totally revealed to us 
in Jesus Christ as the one Word of God. As this one Word He does 
not need to be completed by others. If we are to speak of completion, 
we must say that r as and because He is the living Lord Jesus Christ, 
He is engaged as the one Word of God in a continual completion of 
Himself, not in the sense that the Word spoken by Him is incomplete 
or inadequate, but in the sense that our hearing of it is profoundly 
incomplete. For He Himself is in Himself rich and strong enough to 
display and offer Himself to our poverty with perennial fulness. It 



ioo 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

is not His fault if we see and know so little of God and ourselves. 
There is thus no need to try to catch other words of God. Indeed, we 
must not do so, for any such word can only be the word of another 
god which is per se false in relation to the one God, and therefore it 
can only lead us astray from the truth of the one God and the con- 
sequent truth of man as His elect and beloved creature. Who and 
what the true God is, and through Him true man ; what the freedom of 
God is, and the freedom given by Him to man, is said to us in and 
with the existence of Jesus Christ as true Son of God and Son of Man 
in such a way that any addition can only mean a diminution and 
perversion of our knowledge of the truth. 

That He is the one Word of God means further that He is not 
exposed on any third side to any serious competition, any challenge 
to His truth, any threat to His authority. Such a third side could 
only be a word of God different from that spoken in Him and superior 
or at least equivalent in value and force ; the word, perhaps, of a 
Deus absconditus not identical with the Deus revelatus, or identical 
only in irreconcilable contradiction. Now we have no cause to reckon 
with such an alien word, such a self-contradiction, on the part of God. 
But we have every cause to keep to the fact that He is faithful, and 
that in Jesus Christ we have His total and unique and therefore 
authentic revelation, the Word in which He does full justice both to 
Himself and us. To be sure, this Word meets opposition in the world, 
and also and supremely, as we must not forget, in the Church. To 
be sure, its light is resisted by darkness in the many forms of many 
sinister powers, all of which are connected with the sin of man, all 
empowered and unleashed by his falsehood, all to be taken seriously 
as opponents of the one Word of God. Jesus Christ can certainly be 
unrecognised, despised and rejected in the world and among His own 
people. He can be partially or even totally unheard as the one Word 
of God. That did happen, and happens still. But since God does not 
contradict but is always faithful to Himself, there is one thing that 
can never take place, namely, that such a sinister power and its 
lying words, revelations and prophecies should seriously threaten the 
validity and force of the one Word of God, invading and even destroy- 
ing it. The living Lord Jesus Christ, risen again from the dead, has 
no serious rival as the one Prophet of God who does not merely attest 
but is the Word of God. There is none whose inferiority and final 
displacement is not already decided by His existence, presence and 
action. Who or what can rise up against God, or against Him as the 
one Word of God ? This means in practice that no risk is involved 
if among the bids made by many supposed and pretended lords and 
prophets we trust and obey Him as the Lord and Prophet. He and He 
alone is worthy of complete trust and total obedience. None will 
ever repent of responding to His self-giving, and to the Word spoken 
in it, with a corresponding self-giving which is resolute and exclusive. 



2. The Light of Life 101 

" Whosoever belie veth on him shall not be ashamed " (Rom. lo 11 ). 
For, although He has enemies, He has none who can put Him to 
shame, or who will not be put to shame by Him. 

That He is the one Word of God means further that His truth and 
prophecy cannot be combined with any other, nor can He be enclosed 
with other words in a system superior to both Him and them. As 
the one Word of God, He can bring Himself into the closest conjunc- 
tion with such words. He can make use of certain men, making them 
His witnesses and confessing their witness in such a way that to hear 
them is to hear Him (Lk. io 16 ). He has actually entered into a union 
of this kind with the biblical prophets and apostles, and it is the 
prayer and promise in and by which His community exists that He 
will not refuse but be willing to enter into a similar union with it. 
Nor can any prevent Him entering into such a union with men outside 
the sphere of the Bible and the Church, and with the words of these 
men. Whether in the Church or the world, however, this type of 
union can be legitimate and fruitful only through His act, as His 
work, as a form of His free revelation of grace. Conversely, all syn- 
theses which Christians or non-Christians may arbitrarily devise and 
create between Jesus Christ as the one Word of God and any other 
words, however illuminating, necessary or successful they may be ; 
all well-meant but capricious conjunction of Jesus Christ with some- 
thing else, whether it be Mary, the Church, the fate worked out in 
general and individual history, a presupposed human self-under- 
standing, etc., all these imply a control over Him to which none of 
us has any right, which can be only the work of religious arrogance, 
in which we try to invest Him with His dignity as the Lord and 
Prophet, in the exercise of which He ceases to be who He is, not 
objectively, but for those who are guilty of this rash assault, and in 
and with which faith in Him, love for Him and hope in Him are 
abandoned, however loudly or with whatever degree of subjective 
sincerity they may be professed. There is no legitimate place for 
projects in the planning and devising of which Jesus Christ can be 
given a particular niche in co-ordination with those of other events, 
powers, forms and truths. Such projects are irrelevant and unfruitful 
enterprises because as the one Word of God He wholly escapes every 
conceivable synthesis envisaged in them. They are irrelevant and 
unfruitful because the men who attempt them will always be content 
with the revelations of the other elements. 

We have here the irresistible and relentless outworking of the " Thou shalt 
have none other gods but me " of Ex. 2o 8 . The sin of Israel against the God of 
the covenant made and continually renewed with the patriarchs did not consist 
so much in direct apostasy from Yahweh as in the combination and admixture 
of His service, invocation and acknowledgment in practical obedience, with the 
adoration of the numina of Canaan and other surrounding peoples It consisted 
in the fact that Israel made constant experiments to do the one and not leave 



102 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the other undone, not losing Yahweh yet not missing the Baalim, and therefore 
halting between two opinions (i K. 18"). It consisted in the fact that in its 
refusal to elect in accordance with its own election, it already elected, not electing 
Yahweh but deciding against Him and for the Baalim, and thus becoming a 
people alien like all others to the command of God. The remarkable but very 
relevant and accurate reference to the " jealousy " of Yahweh, which according 
to Ex. 20 K is directed against the attempt to worship Him in fashioned images 
as well as in His invisible majesty, shows us clearly that He radically and auto- 
matically refuses to allow His Godhead to be equated with other divinities, or 
His Word to be heard with other words. Israel can look to Him alone, or not 
at all. It can hear Him alone, or not at all. The whole prophecy of the history 
of Israel as attested by the Old Testament, and therefore explicitly and implicitly 
all its prophets, speak along these lines. 

This combining of the Word of Jesus Christ with the authority and contents 
of other supposed revelations and truths of God has been and is the weak point, 
revealed already in the gnosis attacked in the New Testament, at almost every 
stage in the history of the Christian Church. The prophecy of Jesus Christ has 
never been flatly denied, but fresh attempts have continually been made to list 
it with other principles, ideas and forces (and their prophecy) which are also 
regarded and lauded as divine, restricting its authority to what it can signify 
in co-ordination with them, and therefore to what remains when their authority 
is also granted. Nor is this trend characteristic only of early and mediaeval 
Catholicism. It is seen in Protestantism too, from the very outset in certain 
circles, even in the Reformers themselves, and then with increasing vigour and 
weight, until the fatal little word " and " threatened to become the predominant 
word of theology even in this sphere where we might have hoped for better things 
in view of what seemed to be the strong enough doctrine of justification. It 
needed the rise of the strange but temporarily powerful sect of the German 
Christians of 1933 to call us back to reflection, and at least the beginning of a 
return, when the more zealous among them, in addition to their other abomina- 
tions, awarded cultic honour to the portrait of the Fuhrer. The overthrow of 
this whole attitude, and its provisional reversal, was accomplished in the first 
thesis of Barmen which is the theme of the present exposition. But there are 
other Christian nations in which it is customary to find a prominent place in the 
church for national flags as well as the pulpit and the Lord's table, just as there 
are evangelical churches which substitute for the Lord's table a meaningfully 
furnished apparatus for the accomplishment of baptism by immersion. These 
externals, of course, are trivial in themselves. But as such they may well be 
symptoms of the attempt which is possible in so many forms to incorporate 
that which is alien in other prophecies into what is proper to that of Jesus Christ. 
If these prophecies are prepared for this and sooner or later they will make an 
open bid for sole dominion the prophecy of Jesus Christ asks to be excused 
and avoids any such incorporation. If it is subjected to such combinations, the 
living Lord Jesus and His Word depart, and all that usually remains is the 
suspiciously loud but empty utterance of the familiar name of this Prophet. 
" No man can serve two masters " (Mt. 6 24 ). No man can serve both the one 
Word of God called Jesus Christ and other divine words. 

That He is the one Word of God means finally that His prophecy 
cannot be transcended by any other. It cannot be transcended in the 
content of its declarations, for it tells us all that it is necessary and 
good for us to know concerning God, man and the world, embracing, 
establishing and crowning all that is really worth knowing. It cannot 
be transcended in the depth with which it speaks the truth, for it is 
itself the source and norm of all truth. It cannot be transcended in 



2. The Light of Life 103 

the urgency with which it presents itself to man and demands to be 
acknowledged, recognised and confessed by him, for everyone who 
gives it a hearing sees that this is the one thing necessary compared 
with which all other hearing, however important, must be given a 
secondary and subordinate place. Above all, it cannot be transcended 
in the goodness, seriousness, comfort and wisdom of what it imparts, 
for all other things imparted to us, though these qualities may be 
ascribed to them, are inferior to it, and in respect of goodness can 
only be abased and exalted, disqualified and qualified, by it. In one 
respect alone can there be transcendence. This is not in relation to 
the content, depth, urgency or goodness of the one Word of God 
spoken in Jesus Christ. It is not its transcendence by any other 
word. It is the self-transcendence of Jesus Christ as the one Word of 
God in respect of the universality and direct and definitive clarity 
of the knowledge which Christianity and the world do not yet have in 
the time between His resurrection and ascension, but to which they 
look and move at His return, i.e., His total presence, action and 
revelation which will conclude and fulfil time and history, all times 
and all histories. In this eschaton of creation and reconciliation there 
will not be another Word of God. Jesus Christ will be the one Word 
and we shall then see the final and unequivocal form of His own glory 
which even now shines forth from His resurrection into time and 
history, all times and all histories. The theme of Christian hope, to 
the extent that it is not yet fulfilled nor cannot be so long as time 
endures, is the revelation of the fact that neither formally nor materi- 
ally, theoretically nor practically, can the one Word of God be tran- 
scended, as this is now confirmed in and through His self-transcendence, 
in virtue of which all ears hear and all eyes see all the things which 
already it is actually given to us to see and hear in Him. The inclusion 
of the eschatological element, then, does not imply any restriction, 
but the final expansion and deepening, of our statement that Jesus 
Christ is the one Word of God. 

We now resume (3) our discussion of the question of the basis 
of this statement. What is it which compels or frees us to make 
it ? In an earlier connexion we raised the same question rather 
more generally. We were then asking to what extent the life of Jesus 
Christ is light, revelation, Word and prophecy. We now put the 
more specific question to what extent He is the one light, the one 
Word of God. The more general answer is still true and compre- 
hensive that He is this to the extent that, as God is one, He actually 
is the one Word of the one God, and shows Himself to be this. This 
answer means that Jesus Christ Himself guarantees that He is the 
one Word of God by the fact that He is the only One whom we must 
trust and obey in life and death, and that He shows Himself to be 
this by acting towards us as such. Hence, if anyone asks concerning 
the basis of our statement, we must put the counter-question whether 



IO4 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

he sees and realises that Jesus Christ actually shows Himself to be 
the one Prophet of God. This is the question to which we must make 
answer to ourselves and others. The revelation of God vouches for 
its uniqueness as it does for itself as such. If Jesus Christ is the one 
Word of God, He alone, standing out from the ranks of all other 
supposed and pretended divine words, can make Himself known as 
this one Word. 



" To whom then will ye liken God ? or what likeness will ye compare unto 
him ? " is the question asked in Is. 40", and then again in v. 25 : "To whom 
then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal ? saith the Holy One." The question 
is as such an answer, i.e., to the complaint and accusation of Israel apparently 
abandoned and lost in the storms of world history : " My way is hid from the 
Lord, and my judgment is passed over from my God " (v. 27). In the context 
the drift of the complaint seems to be that Yahweh is only one of many gods, 
and a small one among many greater, so that it is not surprising that His people 
is in this sorry predicament among the great nations. What is the reply of the 
prophet of the Exile ? Simply to put to those who sigh in this way the counter- 
question whether, in the face of who and what Yahweh is and has done and 
still does, in face of His self-evident majesty which reduces to the dust all the 
majesties of the world in their apparent triumph, there can be even the remotest 
possibility of the comparison of Yahweh with the gods of the nations a com- 
parison fatal for Israel and therefore for Himself. " Have ye not known ? have 
ye not heard ? " (v. 21), and then again : " Hast thou not known ? hast thou 
not heard ? " (v. 28). What is it that they should have known because it speaks 
so eloquently for itself ? Again, the answer is first given in the form of further 
questions : " Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and 
meted out heaven with the span, and comprehended the dust of the earth in a 
measure, and weighed the mountains in scales, and the hills in a balance ? Who 
hath directed the Spirit of the Lord, or being his counsellor hath taught him ? 
With whom took he counsel, and who instructed him, and taught him in the 
path of judgment, and taught him knowledge, and shewed to him the way of 
understanding ? " (vv. 12-14). " Hath it not been told you from the beginning ? 
have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth ? " (v 21). And again 
" Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, that 
bringeth out their host by number : he calleth them all by names by the great- 
ness of his might, for that he is strong in power ; not one faileth " (v. 26) Yes, 
Yahweh is the Creator of all things. And with Him there are contrasted (vv 
19-20) the gods of the nations as these are commissioned and executed by men, 
being moulded and gilded or carved according to their means. This leads us to 
the positive conclusion that Yahweh is "he that sitteth upon the circle of the 
earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers ; that stretcheth out the 
heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in . that bringeth 
the princes to nothing ; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity Yea, they 
shall not be planted : yea, they shall not be sown : yea, their stock shall not take 
root in the earth : and he shall also blow upon them, and they shall wither, 
and the whirlwind shall take them away as stubble" (vv. 24-26). " Behold, 
the nations are as a drop of the bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the 
balance : behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing. And Lebanon 
is not sufficient to burn, nor the beasts thereof sufficient for a burnt offering 
All nations before him are as nothing ; and they are counted to him less than 
nothing, and vanity " (w. 15-17). What does this mean for poor little Israel, 
80 impotent by human reckoning ? It means that its complaint and accusation 
are quite pointless. " The Lord who hath created the ends of the earth is an 



2. The Light of Life 105 

everlasting God. He fainteth not, neither is weary. There is no searching of his 
understanding. He giveth power to the faint ; and to them that have no might 
he increaseth strength. Even the youths shall faint and be weary, and the 
young men shall utterly fall. But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their 
strength ; they shall mount up with wings as eagles ; they shall run, and not 
be weary ; and they shall walk, and not faint " (vv. 28-31) The tram of thought 
is remarkable. What is at issue the incomparable uniqueness and therefore 
the absolute sovereignty of Yahweh, and with this the absolute security of 
Israel is not just quietly but with supreme and joyous assurance represented as 
something which is quite self-evident and speaks for itself. This is how the 
biblical mode of thought puts the matter. And it is obvious that the compre- 
hensive answer to the question of the uniqueness of the revelation of God in 
Jesus Christ can basically be no more than that which is so forcefully anticipated 
in Is. 40. 

This does not mean, however, that we cannot and should not fill 
out this general form of the answer which has to be given ; that we 
cannot and should not consider and state what is the specific force 
or point of the one decisive basis of the fact that Jesus Christ is actually 
the one Prophet, the one Word of God. 

We note that even in Is 40 the uniqueness of Yahweh as the absolute Sovereign 
over the nations and their gods is not merely laid down but argumentatively 
expounded. His sovereignty and here we have one of the most important 
if not the first forms of an insight rather curiously achieved during the Exile 
is that of the Creator of heaven and earth It is as such that He stands out so 
unmistakeably above all His rivals and shows Himself to be the one incomparable 
God. It is as such that He causes eagles' wings to grow for those who wait on 
Him, for His small and defeated people in an alien land, giving them strength 
for a journey on which they will never grow weary This is obviously argumenta- 
tion. But equally obviously it is argumentation which does not alter the fact 
that what is proclaimed by God can be proved only by reference to God Himself. 
Yet the point remains that beyond the mere statement we do also have demon- 
stration, i e , explanation, elucidation, illustration and comprehension in the 
form of this reference to God the Creator We too, then, cannot evade the task 
of showing why and to what extent Jesus Christ is the one Word of God. 

To do this, we simply recall the concrete content of this Word. 
The light of Jesus Christ is the light of His life. This was our first 
statement. But His life is His existence as the true Son of God who 
as such is also the true Son of Man. This means, however, that, as a 
life lived as a particular existence and occurrence within human 
history and among the many histories of all other men, it is a life in the 
covenant which God has not only made but in His omnipotent grace 
Himself fulfilled and completed with man. It is the life in which God 
is not only enthroned above man in distant majesty in and above the 
heavens, in which He is not merely the inconceivable source from 
which man comes and the inconceivable goal to which he is directed, 
in which He is not merely the Lawgiver by whose commands his 
actions and omissions are measured, the eternal good which con- 
sciously or unconsciously he misses but to which he consciously or 



io6 96. The Glory of the Mediator 

unconsciously aspires, the mystery by which he is encircled on every 
side. No, it is the life which even in His Godhead, and without its 
slightest diminution, God lives in terms of our common humanity. 
Conversely, it is the life in which man, from the very depths of his 
creatureliness as the grain of dust or drop of water which he is before 
Him, and from the abyss of his sin and guilt and perdition in the 
longing of shame and remorse of the one who knows that he is not 
worthy of such longing, looks up to his Creator as his holy and righteous 
Lord, consciously or unconsciously seeking to cling and hold fast to 
Him, not to surrender fellowship with Him, to find and restore the 
fellowship with Him which has been lost. It is also the life which in 
this lowest depth, in this abyss, in this longing cry of man for the 
God before whom he must regard himself as rejected and forsaken, 
is yet lived in perfect peace with Him, namely, in total harmony with 
His will, in unqualified surrender to His command, and therefore, as 
a life which is truly lost, in the most genuine concealment with God, 
indeed, as a life which is itself divine, as the divine life, as the life of 
the Son beloved of the Father. This is the life of Jesus Christ. It 
is the life of the God who wholly humbles Himself, and of the man who 
is wholly exalted to God by this humbling. It is the life in which 
God justifies man before Him and man is thus sanctified for God. It 
is the life in which God, for the sake of the justification of man to be 
accomplished by Himself alone, takes to Himself and thus removes 
the transgression of man and his ensuing punishment and need. And 
it is the life in which man, that he may become and be a saint of 
God, is called and elevated to the side of God, and given his rights 
there, to reign with Him over all things. It is the life in which God 
gives Himself up to death and man is made the conqueror of death. 
It is the life of the Lord who becomes and is a Servant, and the Servant 
who becomes and is Himself the Lord. It is the life of reconciliation. 
It is the life of Jesus Christ. 

Now Jesus Christ Himself is also the light of this life. In itself 
and as such this life is Word, revelation, kerygma. The life of this 
High-priest and King is as such also His life as Prophet. This life, 
and in the form of this life God Himself, speaks with the world recon- 
ciled in it. It speaks within human history and all the divers histories 
of individuals. It speaks with all those who like this One stand 
under God and before Him, and for and with whom He has acted in 
this life of His. It speaks with all men. It speaks with us too. It 
was and is lived for us (pro nobis), for thee and me (pro te et me). In 
this life God with us (Emmanuel, Dominus nobiscum) is with each of 
us. What this Word tells us is that we are those who are justified and 
sanctified in this life, that it was our place which was taken by God, 
that we are set in His place, that in this life the kingdom of God has 
come to us, that our old life is displaced, removed, destroyed and 
radically transformed in it, that our new and eternal life has begun, 



2. The Light of Life 107 

that our deliverance, conversion and even glorification are accom- 
plished, that we are already dead and risen again, that we are already 
citizens of the future world, i.e., of the new and true world to be 
revealed as the dominion of God and His Christ. We are those who 
are eternally loved and elected by God in Jesus Christ, and called 
tp the grateful realisation of their election in time, each in his own 
time. This is what is said by the reconciliation accomplished in 
Jesus Christ. This is the light of His life. It is the light of His life. 
He Himself as this light and Word is thus the " everlasting gospel " 
which " the angel flying in the midst of heaven " had to proclaim 
" unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, 
and tongue, and people " (Rev. I4 6 ). He Himself declares who and 
what He is, namely, who and what He is for us, for all men, for the 
world. As He declares His life, Himself, for the world, He is the 
Prophet Jesus Christ. 

We now presuppose that this declaration takes place, that as High- 
priest and King He is also Prophet, that His life as such is light, 
revelation, speech. Our present concern is with the fact that He is 
the one light, the one Word of God. This is demonstrated by the 
fact that He is this Word, the Word with this content. For can we 
think of any word actually spoken, or any conceivable word which 
might be spoken, that says what the life of Jesus Christ says ? In 
religious or secular language many words might speak of the majesty, 
goodness, severity and mystery of God, or the misery and greatness 
of man, or his destiny and his contradiction of it, yet also of its realisa- 
tion, or of the glory and terror of the universe. They might point to 
all kinds of relationships between what is below and what is above, 
between the things of this world and those of the world to come, 
usually in the form of the schematic antithesis between reason and 
nature, soul and body or spirit and matter. They might make various 
individual or collective efforts to bridge the gap, whether in terms of 
aesthetic illuminations, intellectual explorations, moral rearmaments 
or politico-economic ameliorations or renewals. They might say 
things which in their way are good and which many find illuminating 
and helpful. But none of them says what the life of Jesus Christ 
says. They may say certain things which remind us of what this 
says. But even in so doing they say something different. And since 
they say these things rigidly and abstractly, this something different 
is inevitably a corruption. They may wittingly or unwittingly say 
things which are borrowed from the Word spoken in Jesus Christ, 
but these lose the meaning which they have in their proper context. 
Being set in a different context, they cannot fail to be somewhat 
distorted, or at least different from what is said to us in Jesus Christ. 
What other word speaks of the covenant between God and man ? 
What other of its character as the work of God, and indeed of the 
effective and omnipotent grace of God on the basis of eternal love 



io8 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

and election ? What other of the fulfilment of this covenant in the 
humiliation of God for the exaltation of man ? What other of a 
comprehensive justification of man by God and sanctification for 
Him ? What other of the fact that this reconciliation of God with 
man and man with God is no mere idea but a once-for-all event ? 
What other pronounces that unconditional Dominus pro et cum nobip, 
thus indicating that a new situation has already been created for all 
humanity, setting each man at this new beginning, and pushing him 
on from this point ? What other knows neither optimism, pessimism 
nor fatalism ? What other does not have to rest on that sorry anti- 
thesis of soul and body, spirit and matter, etc., or on that of the 
individual and society, or man and his fellows, or this world and the 
world to come, because it embraces and refers to the whole man, and 
to his whole way from the past through the present into the future 
as he treads this both inwardly and outwardly, both for himself and in 
company with others ? What other is so penetrating in its simplicity 
yet also its universality ? What other is directed so concretely to 
each and all men ? We may quietly listen to others. We may hear 
what is said by the whole history of religion, poetry, mythology and 
philosophy. We shall certainly meet there with many things which 
might be claimed as elements of the Word spoken by Jesus Christ. 
But what a mass of rudiments and fragments which in their isolation 
and absoluteness say something very different from this Word ! 
What strife and contradiction between all these results of one-sided 
analyses and over-hasty syntheses ! It is only on a very facile and 
superficial view that we think we can range the Word of Jesus Christ 
and its claim to validity with all other words and their claims, thus 
believing that any one of them may be normative in view of their 
multiplicity, or perhaps sorrowfully or cheerfully maintaining that 
none is normative, but the " true ring " 1 has perhaps been lost. If it 
were a matter of the word of Christianity among the world religions, 
or the word of the Christian Church in one or other form, or the words 
of the Bible in themselves and as such, a view of this kind might be 
possible. As such, all these may be ranged with many other words. 
But we are speaking of the light or Word of the life of Jesus Christ. 
Is it not the case that in the light of its particular content this is 
quite distinctive in relation to all other words ? Does it not say 
something which we cannot catch in others however attentively we 
listen ? And is this special feature only one particle among a thousand 
others ? Is it not the one thing that raises the question and gives 
the answer which both begin where the speakers of all other words 
have not yet begun to ask and answer, and which continue and reach 
their goal where other questions and answers all usually break off ? 
Does it not have a particular force or point which all others obviously 

1 The ring of Lessing's parable in Nathan der Weise. Trans. 



2. The Light of Life 109 

lack ? Is it not the case that the Word of the life of Jesus Christ is 
clearly shown to be the Word of God, His one and only Word, even 
by what it says ? Does not this alone authorise, empower and com- 
mand us to understand and describe it as the Word which needs no 
completion, which is exposed to no competition, and which cannot 
be combined with or transcended by others ? To refer again to 
Isaiah 40 21 : " Have ye not known ? have ye not heard ? " 

This does not mean that we are engaging in apologetics. Or if so, 
it is only the apologetics which is a necessary function of dogmatics 
to the extent that this must prepare an exact account of the pre- 
supposition, limits, meaning and basis of the statements of the 
Christian confession, and thus be able to give this account to any 
who may demand it. We have maintained, and do not cease to 
maintain, the presupposition of the statement that Jesus Christ is the 
one Prophet of God. This presupposition is that He actually is this 
One and shows Himself to be such. Within the framework of this 
presupposition we have (i) established what the statement says and 
does not say, and (2) brought out something of its positive significance. 
And within the framework of the same presupposition that He is the 
one Word of God and shows Himself to be such, we have now (3) tried 
to make clear what is the basis of this declaration. We have not 
added another basis to that which it has (along with its limits and 
meaning) in the presupposition. The only thing is that we have not 
been and could not be content merely to denote it again, or to refer 
again to the fact that it is its own basis. In accordance with the 
necessary strictness of dogmatic enquiry, we could not stop at mere 
assertion. In relation to the content of the Word spoken in Jesus 
Christ, we have tried to describe and explain this basis. The fact 
remains, however, that it can only speak for itself and show itself to 
be the basis of our statement. Without counting on the Holy Spirit 
as the only conclusive argument, even the prophet of the Exile who 
advanced those arguments and proofs could not have undertaken to 
proclaim the uniqueness of Yahweh among the gods of the nations. 

We have already adduced under (i) some of the passages in which the authors 
of the New Testament establish the uniqueness of Jesus Christ by simply bringing 
together and equating the cfe 6e6s and the cfe Kvpios (the one els explaining 
the other) In so doing, they maintain that the uniqueness of the Prophet Jesus 
Christ has its basis in that of God, and therefore in itself. 

We now recall other passages in which they declare the nature and essence 
of this basis within the framework of the accepted presupposition The most 
important statements which call for consideration in this connexion are from 
Rom 5 12f , in which the significant word efc plays so outstanding a role. Accord- 
ing to v. 15, it is the grace and the free gift (Scopea) of God which in the one man 
Jesus Christ has " abounded unto many " In v. 17 those who receive abundance 
of grace and righteousness in virtue of the life of Jesus Christ created in them, 
shall reign through the one Jesus Christ In v. 18 again it is by the righteous 
act (Suou'cupa) of this One that there is this justification for all. Similarly, the 
Epistle to the Hebrews (io ls 14 ) speaks of the one exclusive Ovata or 



no 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

which Christ has made for sins, which is followed by His session at the right hand 
of God, but by which He has perfected for ever them that are sanctified through 
Him. " One died for all " is the sum of what is stated in 2 Cor. 5 14 , and it leads 
to the conclusion that " they which live (through his death) should not hence- 
forth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." 
According to 2 Cor. n a they are engaged to this one man and are to be presented 
to Him as a " chaste virgin." This corresponds to the fact that in Gal. 3" He is 
the one seed of Abraham. Hence the sayings about the one Spirit in i Cor. 
I2 9, 11, is and phii. !i7 f an( i a bout the community as the one body in i Cor. 
I2 i, o and Col. 3", and the whole series of unities in Eph. 4*'-, acquire their 
true meaning and significance. It is in the uniqueness of His works and gifts, 
of His being for us and to us, that the uniqueness of Jesus Christ as Lord, and 
therefore the uniqueness of His authority and Word, is manifested. And all 
this rests upon, and is guaranteed by, the fact that He is the one Lord, with 
unique and exclusive authority, and that He reveals Himself as such. He alone 
who is and has life, and can and does forgive, has also the " words of eternal 
life" (Jn. 6 M ). 

Before we conclude, we must be clear (4) what is the relationship 
between the one Word of God called Jesus and all the other words which 
according to our discussion under (i), while they are not identical 
with it, yet even in their whole creatureliness and human frailty 
either are or may be true words, and are not therefore to be over- 
looked, let alone rejected. In this respect we think especially of the 
words of the Bible, i.e., of the Old and New Testament witnesses to 
Jesus Christ. But we have also to remember the words of the com- 
munity and Christendom proclaiming Jesus Christ in the world. We 
have also claimed that there are no good grounds not to accept the 
fact that such good words may also be spoken extra muros ecclesiae 
either through those who have not yet received any effective witness 
to Jesus Christ, and cannot therefore be reckoned with the believers 
who for their part attest Him, or through more or less admitted 
Christians who are not, however, engaged in direct confession, or 
direct activity as members of the Christian community, but in the 
discharge of a function in world society and its orders and tasks. It 
is obvious that a challenging problem is set, particularly by the third 
and final form of these words. But before we tackle it, we do well to 
raise and answer certain general questions which are relevant to all 
three forms. 

(a) What is meant when we say that these words distinct from that 
of Jesus Christ Himself are " true " ? In other words, how is their 
truth related to that of the Word of Jesus Christ as the one Word of 
God ? Does it, or does it not, share the truth of this one Word, and 
if so to what extent ? In what order are these words to be heard 
together with the one Word of God ? And therefore, conversely, in 
what order is the one Word of God to be heard together with them ? 

Assuming that there are such words, in what does their general 
truth consist according to our definition of truth as the faithfulness, 
genuineness and reliability of what they impart ? 



2. The Light of Life in 

To this question our first and general answer must be that in order 
to be true, and therefore to be words of genuine prophecy, such words 
must be in the closest material and substantial conformity and agree- 
ment with the one Word of God Himself and therefore with that of 
His one Prophet Jesus Christ. The truth proper to the one Word of 
God must dwell within them. Applied to such words, " true " must 
imply that they say the same thing as the one Word of God, and are 
true for this reason. 

(b) What will be the formal character of these words, again in 
relation to the one Word of God ? As human and creaturely words, 
they can have the same content, but this does not necessarily concur 
or agree wholly and utterly with that of the Word of God. They can 
have the truth of this one Word indwelling them, but as the distinct 
words of other prophets they can hardly have, or arrogantly claim, 
equal truth for themselves. Even as true words of God, they must 
still distinguish themselves from this one Word, keeping their distance 
and conceding and accepting the fact that it alone is truth. They 
can declare its content and truth, and thus share its content and 
truth, only to the extent that they declare nothing of their own, 
but in their utterance and emphasis are prepared to attest this one 
Word exactly as it is, without subtraction, addition or alteration. It 
is in this character that they may stand alongside it. Neither 
objectively nor subjectively may they have any other intention than 
to correspond to it and thus to confirm it. Only in this relationship 
to it can they be called true words. 

(c) Yet how can such words ever succeed in attesting and corres- 
ponding to the one Word of God, or even try to do so ? Obviously, this 
is something to which they can only attain. Those who speak them 
must in some way be commissioned, moved and empowered to attest 
it. And what can do this but the one Word of God, Jesus Christ 
Himself ? He must have encountered in some way those who speak 
these words, giving Himself to be seen and heard and perceived and 
known by them. For how else could they attain to this knowledge ? 
He must have ordained, awakened and called them to take His Word 
on their lips in the form of witness to Him. And again, if their witness 
is to be genuine, authentic, and therefore credible and serviceable, He 
must have acknowledged their word. In other words, it must have 
pleased the Word of God to allow itself to be in some sense reflected 
and reproduced in the words of these men. This Word must have 
demonstrated to these men and their words the grace of its real 
presence, in the power of which they as men are empowered and 
authorised, quite beyond any capacity of their own, to declare it 
with their human words, and thus to show themselves to be speakers 
of true words. 

This is our general answer to the question of the character always 
essential to such words. If our deliberations are right, we now realise 



U2 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

that as these different human words they cannot and will not and 
must not say anything on their part but the one Word of God, and 
that it must be by this one Word of God that they are impelled, 
ordained and fashioned for this function of bearing testimony to it. 

It will help to an appreciation of the various elements in this general answer 
if we pause for a moment to discuss the problem of the parables of Jesus as 
handed down in the Gospels TrapajSoAai are little stories which it seems anyone 
might tell of ordinary human happenings. But they are called TrapajSoAai' of the 
/faaiAeta, and it is often said expressly that the /JaaiAe/a is " likened unto " 
(o/MoiaJflij) these events, or, with an obvious view to this equation, that the events 
themselves, or the leading characters in them, are " like " the j3a<nA'a. It is 
also said that the kingdom in its likeness to these events, or these events in their 
likeness to the kingdom, can and will be heard by those who have ears to hear, 
i.e., by those to whom it is given to hear (Mk 4** ) That is to say, they will 
hear and receive the equations or likenesses as such, whereas those who are 
" without " will not perceive and understand what is at issue, namely, the 
" mystery " of the kingdom Even in these secondary forms of parables, and 
in them specifically, the Word of Jesus Christ as the light of life, the revelation 
of the kingdom, the Word of God establishing His lordship in the world, is to 
exercise its gracious yet judicial power, deciding concerning men and between 
them Our present concern, however, is with these secondary forms as such, 
and therefore with the equations which they make and the resultant likenesses. 
The one true Word of God makes these other words true. Jesus Christ utters, 
or rather creates, these parables, speaking of the kingdom, of the life, and there- 
fore of Himself, and doing so in stones which it might seem that others could 
tell, yet which they are unable to do, because His Word alone can equate the 
kingdom with such events, and such events with the kingdom, in a way which 
makes the kingdom really like them, and makes them like the kingdom in which 
He tells them, so that the narrative is no mere metaphor but a disclosing yet also 
concealing revelation, self -representation and self-offering of the kingdom and 
the life, and therefore His own self -revelation As regards their materials, these 
are parables in the strict sense, for although they bring before us happenings 
from everyday life and familiar stories of human action and inaction the 
peasant on his land, the owner of the vineyard and his workers, the father and 
his sons, the capitalist and his stewards, the shepherd and his sheep, the king 
and his banquet, the children on the streets, the bridesmaids at the marriage 
yet the circle of interest is relatively small, many things are not touched upon, 
and there is obviously no intention of speaking of this kingdom as such and in 
its totality. Indeed, at the decisive points the materials of the parables of Dives 
and Lazarus (Lk i6 1Bf ) and the last judgment (Mt 25 31f -) are not taken from 
everyday life at all, but from the imagery of late Jewish apocalyptic familiar 
to their hearers. Even among the rest there are only a few, e g., the seed growing 
secretly (Mk. 4 26f ), the mustard-seed and leaven (Mt. i3 3ir ) and the drag-net 
(Mt. I3* 7f ), which have an unequivocally everyday character, and it is to be 
noted that even here we have to do with more or less hidden processes. Real 
men, whether peasants, rich and poor, fathers and sons, kings or others, do not 
normally act and speak as in these stones. They are not really like this. To be 
sure, there are no miracles in the stories Yet strange things happen Hardly 
any would be in place in an informative newspaper account, because it is obvious 
that the figures in them are very strangely shaped, and their actions no less 
strangely directed, by an invisible hand which obviously estranges them from 
the everyday sphere in which they are set. For this reason, the happenings 
recorded can hardly lay claim to any purely human interest. It is not intended 
that the hearers and readers should recognise themselves in them on this level, 



2. The Light of Life 113 

nor that their consideration and understanding of the human sphere should be 
expanded by them. It is the kingdom of heaven which is likened unto them, 
and they to it. This is what is presupposed and declared by all these stories. 
As other true words they are to accompany and attest the one Word of God. 
They are not to be witnesses of something old in a specific new form. They are 
to be witnesses of something new to all men, and to be newly apprehended by 
them all. How could they be this if on the one side their material did not consist 
in stories from everyday life ? Yet on the other, how could they indicate that 
which is new if they were merely photographs of everyday happenings, and we 
did not see the fashioning and guiding hand which takes events in the human 
sphere that might well be photographed in theory, though not here in practice, 
and gives them the mark of the extraordinary, distinguishing them from other 
events and characterising them as those which are like the kingdom of heaven, 
and to which the kingdom of heaven is like ? Under this hand, recounted by 
Jesus, these everyday happenings become what they were not before, and what 
they cannot be in and of themselves. It is to be noted that even the events taken 
from the symbolical world of apocalyptic in Lk. 17 and Mt. 25 are brought into 
resemblance with the kingdom only because Jesus narrates, fashions and trans- 
forms them (This in itself is sufficient reason not to incorporate them into a 
Christian doctrine of the last things in the raw state in which they are taken up 
and worked over in these passages ) As Jesus tells them, the material is every- 
where transformed, and there is an equation of the kingdom with them, and of 
them with the kingdom, in which the being, words and activities of labourers, 
householders, kings, fathers, sons, etc , become real testimony to the real presence 
of God on earth, and therefore to the events of this real presence. 

In sum, the New Testament parables are as it were the prototype of the order 
in which there can be other true words alongside the one Word of God, created 
and determined by it, exactly corresponding to it, fully serving it and therefore 
enjoying its power and authority. 

The second main question which we must now answer is whether 
there really are other words which in this sense are true in relation 
to the one Word of God. Postponing the most difficult part of the 
question, our first reply is i. that the utterance of such true words is 
the event which the Christian community has always perceived in the 
.proclamation of the Old and New Testaments, from which it has 
always started, on which it has always built and established its message 
to the world, and by which it has always to invigorate and orientate 
itself and its being, life and action ; and 2. that from the very first 
and right into our own time, as it has let itself be taught and guided 
by the proclamation of the prophets of the Old Testament and the 
apostles of the New, the Christian community has always had the 
promise and commission that it, too, should come to utter such true 
words. These are the two secondary forms of the Word of God which 
derive from the primary and are subjected to it in this order. Both 
are subjected to the first because, while they are true parables, they 
are and can and should be no more than parables wholly created and 
determined by it. And they are subjected in this order because the 
word of the prophets and apostles has its truth from the fact that, 
as they themselves participated in the history of Israel and that of 
Jesus Christ, it was directly formed and guided by the one Word of 



H4 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

God, whereas the Church's word can be true only to the extent that 
it receives its shape in the school of the prophets and apostles, allowing 
itself to be continually tested, awakened, directed and corrected by 
their word. By a lengthy detour we are thus brought back to the 
theme of the Prolegomena to the Church Dogmatics, to the doctrine 
of the threefold form of the Word of God as revealed, written and 
proclaimed. In this context, we cannot establish, develop and present 
it again as is done in detail in C.D., I, I and I, 2. In explication of 
the present question it is enough that, recalling our earlier conclusions, 
we should simply maintain that alongside the first and primary Word 
of God, and in relation to it, there are at least two other true words 
which are distinct yet inter-related in the above-mentioned sequence. 
Their twofold truth that of the Bible and the Church stands or 
falls with, and is wholly dependent on, the fact that the word of the 
Bible, and taught and corrected by it the word of the community, 
(a) coincides and agrees in content with the Word spoken in Jesus 
Christ as (b) it is ready to be only its attestation, empowered as true 
attestation by the fact that (c) the light of life shines in it as well, 
Jesus Christ Himself being the Creator and Lord of Scripture, and as 
such also the Creator and Lord of the community which proclaims 
Him. Scripture speaks the truth as, impelled by Christ as the Prophet 
of God, it also presents Him, confirming and attesting His prophecy. 
And the Christian community speaks the truth to the extent that it 
perceives and receives the prophecy of Christ attested by Scripture, 
and thus gives itself to present Christ by its own word. If the words 
of Scripture and the Christian community can be called a true word 
in the strict sense, in neither case can there be any question of com- 
pleting, rivalling, systematising or transcending the one Word. 
These words do not stand beside it in their own right. The one Word 
itself sets them there. Similarly, they are not independent, but their 
relationship with it is one of service, and it is only as they are spoken 
in this ministry of service that there can be any question of their 
validity, dignity or truth. To the biblical witnesses, and to all the 
witnesses of the Christian community, it is promised and given to be 
parables of the kingdom of heaven. 

Presupposing that this is accepted and confessed, we now turn to 
the more complicated question of true words which are not spoken 
in the Bible or the Church, but which have to be regarded as true in 
relation to the one Word of God, and therefore heard like this Word, 
and together with it. 

Are there really true words, parables of the kingdom, of this very 
different kind ? Does Jesus Christ speak through the medium of such 
words ? The answer is that the community which lives by the one 
Word of the one Prophet Jesus Christ, and is commissioned and 
empowered to proclaim this Word of His in the world, not only may 
but must accept the fact that there are such words and that it must 



2. The Light of Life 115 

hear them too, notwithstanding its life by this one Word and its 
commission to preach it. Naturally, there can be no question of 
words which say anything different from this one Word, but only 
of those which do materially say what it says, although from a different 
source and in another tongue. But can it ever pay sufficient attention 
to this one Word ? Can it be content to hear it only from Holy 
Scripture and then from its own lips and in its own tongue ? Should 
it not be grateful to receive it also from without, in very different 
human words, in a secular parable, even though it is grounded in and 
ruled by the biblical, prophetico-apostolic witness to this one Word ? 
Words of this kind cannot be such as overlook or even lead away from 
the Bible. They can only be those which, in material agreement with 
it, illumine, accentuate or explain the biblical witness in a particular 
time and situation, thus confirming it in the deepest sense by helping 
to make it sure and concretely evident and certain. They can only 
be words which will lead the community more truly and profoundly 
than ever before to Scripture. Has it any good reason to refuse this 
kind of stimulation and direction, whatever its origin or form ? In 
so doing, would it really be obedient to Scripture, which in both 
Testaments often introduces witnesses to the truth from the darkness 
of the nations and therefore from outside the community of the elect 
and called, giving them a serious message to deliver and thus dis- 
playing that which is old and familiar in a new guise ? Does it not 
necessarily lead to ossification if the community rejects in advance 
the existence and word of these alien witnesses to the truth ? It 
must test them by the witness of Scripture. But it must really hear 
them, although without prejudice to its own mission to preach the 
one Word of God in its own tongue and manner as grounded in and 
directed by the biblical witness. We do not refer to words which might 
tempt it from this task or make it unwilling or incompetent to dis- 
charge it. We simply refer to those which make it apparent that the 
war in which it is engaged has already been fought to a finish by its 
Lord, that the world in which it has to work has not been abandoned 
by Him even apart from the action or assistance of the community, 
that it is not wholly destitute of the Word which the community has 
been set among it to proclaim. We refer, then, to the words in which 
the community, when it hears them, can find itself lightened, gladdened 
and encouraged in the execution of its own task. The community is 
not Atlas bearing the burden of the whole world on its shoulders. For 
all its dedication to the cause which it represents in the world, the 
cause is not its own, nor does the triumph of this cause depend upon 
it. But the One who has particularly entrusted His cause to it will 
see to it that it is not left to its own resources in championing it. 
Even within the world which opposes it, He will ensure that, as there 
are always acts of His rule in general, so, too, there will be raised up 
witnesses to its cause, which is really His. This is the message which 



Ii6 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the community has to learn through these true words of a very 
different origin and character. In this respect, too, it would be foolish 
and ungrateful if it closed its ears to them. 

But are there really such true words spoken in the secular world 
and addressed to the community from it ? How can we count on this ? 
There is only one decisive answer. We can count on it as and because 
we come from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, from the revelation 
of the humiliation of God's own Son to human sin and perdition as 
this has been crowned by God the Father, from the revelation of 
man's exaltation to living fellowship with God as this has been 
achieved in the person of the Son, in short, from the revelation of the 
reconciliation of the world with God effected in Jesus Christ. It was 
to the One who, in virtue of His revelation in His resurrection, was 
and is and will be the Reconciler, that the history of Israel moved, 
and the prophets of Israel, and later the apostles, bore witness. It is 
in Him as this Reconciler of the world that the community believes. 
It is He as this Reconciler who is the theme of its proclamation. It 
derives from His resurrection in which He was manifested as this 
Reconciler of the world. It recognises and confesses Him as such. 
But recognising and confessing Him as such, it does not recognise and 
confess Him merely as its own, as the man of its own faith, love and 
hope, as its own Head and Lifegiver and Ruler. It is for all that this 
One has suffered in His abasement and acted in His exaltation. In 
Him there has taken place the co-ordination of the whole world with 
God in disclosure, condemnation, yet also remission of the sin of man. 
He has taken over the rulership of the world. All things are put 
under Him. All the powers and forces of the whole cosmos are sub- 
jected to Him as He was and is and will be this One who accomplishes 
reconciliation and makes peace between God and man. In the lowest 
depths He has triumphed, in the supreme heights He rules at the right 
hand of the Father, as the One who was crucified, dead and buried for 
the salvation, justification and sanctification of all men. Neither in 
the depths nor in the heights does He act in vain, but all that lives 
and moves and has its being between these spheres lies in the sphere 
of His dominion, and therefore of that of His Word and prophetic 
work which are our present concern. Hence, according to the witness 
of His prophets and apostles grounded in His resurrection, the sphere 
of His dominion and Word is in any case greater than that of their 
prophecy and apostolate, and greater than that of the kerygma, 
dogma, cultus, mission and whole life of the community which 
gathers and edifies itself and speaks and acts in their school. The 
greater sphere of His dominion and therefore His Word enfolds the 
lesser sphere of their word of ministry. If with the prophets and 
apostles we have our starting-point at His resurrection and therefore 
at His revelation as the One who was and is and will be ; if we 
recognise and confess Him as the One who was and is and will be, then 



2. The Light of Life 117 

we recognise and confess that not we alone, nor the community which, 
following the prophets and apostles, believes in Him and loves Him 
and hopes in Him, but de iure all men and all creation derive from His 
cross, from the reconciliation accomplished in Him, and are ordained 
to be the theatre of His glory and therefore the recipients and bearers 
of His Word. In the very light of this narrower and smaller sphere 
of the Bible and the Church, we cannot possibly think that He cannot 
speak, and His speech cannot be attested, outside this sphere. We 
who in contrast to others have our place and task here, and to whom 
it is given to know what others do not know, can and must expect 
that His voice will also be heard without. We can and must be 
prepared to encounter " parables of the kingdom " in the full biblical 
sense, not merely in the witness of the Bible and the various arrange- 
ments, works and words of the Christian Church, but also in the 
secular sphere, i.e., in the strange interruption of the secularism of 
life in the world. In the narrow corner in which we have our place 
and task we cannot but eavesdrop in the world at large. We have 
ears to hear the voice of the Good Shepherd even there too, dis- 
tinguishing it from other clamant voices, and therefore, as we hear 
it, not moving out of the circle and ministry of His Word, but placing 
ourselves the more definitely and deeply within it, that we may be 
the better and more attentive and more convincing servants of this 
Word. 

It will be seen that, in order to perceive that we really have to 
reckon with such true words from without, we have no need to appeal 
either for basis or content to the sorry hypothesis of a so-called 
" natural theology " (i.e., a knowledge of God given in and with the 
natural force of reason or to be attained in its exercise). Even if this 
were theologically meaningful or practicable (which it is not), it could 
not provide us with what is required. By way of natural theology, 
apart from the Bible and the Church, there can be attained only 
abstract impartations concerning God's existence as the Supreme 
Being and Ruler of all things, and man's responsibility towards Him. 
But these are not what we have in view. What we have in view are 
attestations of the self-impartation of the God who acts as Father in 
the Son by the Holy Ghost, which show themselves to be such by their 
full agreement with the witness present in Scripture and accepted and 
proclaimed by the Church, and which can be materially tested by and 
compared with this witness. What we have in view are words which 
like those of the Bible and the Church can be claimed as " parables 
of the kingdom. 1 ' Natural theology would belie its very name if it 
had any interest in words of this type, while we for our part have 
no interest in what it thinks it can advance as true words concerning 
God and man in general. We do not leave the sure ground of Christ- 
ology, but with the prophets and apostles, and the Christian com- 
munity established and living by the Gospel and making Christ the 



n8 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

object of its faith and love and hope, we look to the sovereignty of 
Jesus Christ which is revealed in His resurrection and which we find 
to be attested by the Bible and the Church, but not restricted according 
to this testimony. Nothing could be further from our minds than to 
attribute to the human creature as such a capacity to know God and 
the one Word of God, or to produce true words corresponding to this 
knowledge. Even in the sphere of the Bible and the Church there 
can be no question of any such capacity. If there are true words of 
God, it is all miraculous. How much more so, then, in this wider 
field ! What we have in both cases is the capacity of Jesus Christ to 
raise up of the stones children to Abraham, i.e., to take into His 
service, to empower for this service, to cause to speak in it, men who 
are quite without any capacity of their own. Our thesis is simply 
that the capacity of Jesus Christ to create these human witnesses is 
not restricted to His working on and in prophets and apostles and 
what is thus made possible and actual in His community. His capacity 
transcends the limits of this sphere. We may thus expect, and count 
upon it, that even among those who are outside this sphere and its 
particular orders and conditions He will use His capacity to make of 
men, quite apart from and even in face of their own knowledge or 
volition, something which they could never be of themselves, namely, 
His witnesses, speaking words which can seriously be called true. 
There is significant and pregnant mention in the Gospels of the fact 
that Jesus healed the blind, the deaf and the dumb. From the 
prophets and apostles to ourselves, there has never been a man even 
in the sphere of the Bible and the Church who has not belonged to 
the ranks of the blind, the deaf and the dumb, who has not needed, 
or more strictly does not continually need, to be healed by Jesus. 
Our present contention is that what was and is possible for Him in 
the narrower sphere is well within His powers in the wider. 

But what is this wider sphere ? To whom or what do we refer 
when we speak of the secular world in contrast with that of the Bible 
and the Church ? If we are to be precise, we must distinguish between 
a closer and a more distant periphery of this narrow sphere, between a 
secularism which approximates to a pure and absolute form and 
another which is mixed and relative. From both, Jesus Christ can 
raise up extraordinary witnesses to speak true words of this very 
different order. 

We have a secularism which approximates to a pure and absolute 
form, and which therefore stands furthest from the sphere of the 
Bible and the Church, when a man or several men stand unwittingly 
in full isolation from the Gospel in its biblical and churchly form, in 
which it has never or only very inadequately reached them, and 
when they are in a frame of mind in which it is to be humanly expected 
that when it does reach them their reaction to it will be hostile. There 
are such men, not only in so-called heathen territories not yet opened 



2. The Light of Life 119 

to missions, nor onlyas we must say with qualifications in Eastern 
peoples now overrun by an avowedly atheistic culture, education, 
psychology and ethics, but also in the greatest proximity to the 
Christian Churches a proximity which may contain within itself the 
greatest inward distance. Even in the sphere of Christendom there 
are many who belong sociologically, by name and baptism, but do 
not belong at all in practice, being blind and deaf heathen. There is 
a whole world which for various reasons is not yet or no longer attached 
to any religion, and certainly not to the Word of God, but obstinately 
boasts of its own sovereignty. Yet we must not conclude too hastily 
that this constitutes a limit to the sovereignty of Jesus Christ and 
the power of His prophecy, so that true words are not to be expected 
on human lips in this sphere. We are not even to say that they are 
hardly to be expected, or expected only with a lesser degree of prob- 
ability. For we must not forget that, while man may deny God, 
according to the Word of reconciliation God does not deny man. 
Man may be hostile to the Gospel of God, but this Gospel is not hostile 
to him. The fact that he is closed to it does not alter the further fact 
that it is open for him. Nor does the fact that he does not recognise 
the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, and if he did would perhaps rebel 
against it in his autonomy, result in its losing any of its validity even 
in relation to him. How can it be any less probable, or even im- 
possible, that it should actually be exercised and demonstrated in 
relation to him too ? No Prometheanism can be effectively main- 
tained against Jesus Christ. As the One who suffered and conquered 
on the cross, He has destroyed it once and for all and in all its forms. 
But this means that in the world reconciled by God in Jesus Christ 
there is no secular sphere abandoned by Him or withdrawn from His 
control, even where from the human standpoint it seems to approxi- 
mate most dangerously to the pure and absolute form of utter god- 
lessness. If we say that there is, we are not thinking and speaking in 
the light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. But if we refrain from 
this inflexible attitude, we will certainly be prepared at any time for 
true words even from what seem to be the darkest places. Even from 
the mouth of Balaam the well-known voice of the Good Shepherd 
may sound, and it is not to be ignored in spite of its sinister origin. 

But rather closer to the sphere of the Bible and the Church, there 
is also secularism in its mixed and relative form. We find it especially 
in what seems to be the common pattern in so many countries to-day 
of men who have been reached in some way by the Gospel in its biblical 
and churchly form, who have been affected by it to varying degrees, 
who have been influenced and determined by it in some measure, who 
have a certain deeper or more superficial acquaintance with it, and 
who either sincerely or not so sincerely accept it, or at least do not 
deny it, yet whose life as a whole in the earning of their livelihood, 
the exercise of their calling, the enjoyment of their great and little 



120 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

pleasures, the thinking of their thoughts, their practice of scholarship, 
art, technics or politics, the modes and habits and customs which 
determine their intercourse runs along lines which, to put it mildly, 
seem to have no very clear connexion with the kingdom proclaimed 
by the Gospel, but rather to represent a very different world resting 
upon and impelled by its own laws and tendencies. What we have 
here is a world which in some way is concretely confronted by the 
Gospel in its biblical and churchly form, and at many points affected, 
illumined, unsettled and modified by it. It is a world which cannot 
altogether escape encounter with it. In a word, it is the world of 
mixed and relative secularism which is the distinctive form of the 
wider sphere in which those who are seriously trying to be Christians 
jostle with those who are so only in name and appearance and external 
allegiance. Now on the face of it, it seems much more likely, more 
easily possible and therefore more readily to be expected, that in this 
sphere which is closer to that of the Bible and the Church there will 
be human words which attest the one Word of God and can thus be 
regarded as " parables of the kingdom/' For this sphere can always be 
explained as an echo or positive answer to the speech of Jesus Christ 
attested by the ministry of the Christian community. Why should 
not this speech evoke a reply to the extent that it is sounded forth 
in the message of the Christian community ? Why should we not 
expect to hear true words from this world which only to a limited 
extent rests upon and is impelled by itself ? Why should we not 
more readily expect them from this world than from the sphere in 
which secularism has not been visibly confronted by the Gospel and 
is thus identical, or threatens to become so, with militant godlessness ? 
Yet we must continually ask ourselves whether this mixed and relative 
secularism might not be characterised by perhaps an even greater 
resistance to the Gospel for the very reason that it is used to being 
confronted by and having to come to terms with it, and is thus able 
the more strongly to consolidate itself against it, making certain 
concessions and accommodations no doubt, parading in large measure 
as a world of Christian culture, but closing its ears the more firmly 
against it, and under the sign of a horrified rejection of theoretical 
atheism cherishing the more radically and shamelessly a true atheism 
of practice. How can there be true words where it is sincerely or 
insincerely thought that due honour and even reverence should be 
paid to the Gospel but the art has been long since learned of accepting 
it without allowing it to intrude upon what are still at bottom secular 
thoughts and desires, as it can and should if it is really to declare 
its message ? In a meaningful application of what is said about the 
obduracy of Israel in Romans 9-11, do we not have to think of the 
particular temptations and dangers of the situation in a " Christian " 
or " Christianised " culture and society, and in view of these are we 
not forced to say that, if true words are to be uttered and heard from 



2. The Light of Life 121 

such a world of mixed and relative secularism, no less a miracle is 
needed than where we seem to have the express and unequivocal 
secularism of militant godlessness ? But all this has reference only 
to the one aspect of the particular situation in this second form of 
secularism. And when we consider the other, we shall not allow this 
concern to have the last word, however well-founded it may be. The 
power and cunning of a wordliness affected, coloured and embellished 
by Christianity may be as dreadful as we may fear them to be, and as 
Kierkegaard and others have presupposed. The Church may very 
properly be asked whether it has really done what is necessary for the 
true delivery of its message in such a situation, or whether it has not 
secretly or openly fallen victim to this creeping secularisation, and is 
now itself howling with the wolves. Yet all these obvious fears must 
not result in a basic lack of confidence in the power of the message, 
however well or badly delivered. For there is also a distinctive 
situation, inward and spiritual rather than external and technical, in 
which the community and Christianity are found at the heart of 
secularism, however poor and wretched and strange they may be, so 
that the world which apes them so cunningly and successfully, pene- 
trating even to the life and thought and speech of Christians them 
selves, is yet concretely confronted by Jesus Christ as the one Word 
of God through the instrumentality of the word and preaching, the 
instruction and worship, the whole life of the community. Is the 
Church His body, His own earthly-historical form of existence, or is 
it not ? " Lo, I am with you alway " (Mt. 28 20 ) ; " Where two or 
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them " (Mt. i8 20 ) ; " He that heareth you heareth me " (Lk. io 16 ) 
are these promises true or are they not ? And if they are true, are we 
permitted not to believe them ? But if they are true, and we believe 
them, why do we not also believe in the miracle as it will always be 
that the Word of Jesus Christ as well or badly attested by Christian 
proclamation, if not the proclamation itself, is stronger than the 
power and hardihood of the mixed and relative secularism of a 
" Christian " culture and society which confronts the community and 
continually penetrates and determines even the community itself? 
Why should it not be possible for God to raise up witnesses from this 
world of tarnished untruth, so that true words are uttered and heard 
even where it might seem that at very best no most than crude or 
refined deception may be expected ? In virtue of the missionary and 
evangelistic power of Christianity ? No, but in virtue of the living 
and self-developing seed which it sows, namely, the seed of the Word 
of its Lord who is free to acknowledge its activity, sometimes perhaps 
to its own very great surprise, by causing it to bring forth fruit and 
creating for it an echo and response without. For Him neither the 
militant godlessness of the outer periphery of the community, nor the 
intricate heathenism of the inner, is an insurmountable barrier. 



122 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

In neither case should we have any illusions as to the antithesis 
between the kingdom of heaven and those of this earth. But in 
neither case should we have too little confidence in the One who 
extends His dominion also over the kingdoms of this earth, nor expect 
too little in the way of signs of this lordship. How many signs He 
may well have set up in both the outer and inner darkness which 
Christianity has overlooked in an unjustifiable excess of scepticism, to 
the detriment of itself and its cause ! We are summoned to believe 
in Him, and in His victorious power, not in the invincibility of any 
non-Christian, anti-Christian or pseudo-Christian worldliness which 
confronts Him. The more seriously and joyfully we believe in Him, 
the more we shall see such signs in the worldly sphere, and the more 
we shall be able to receive true words from it. 

It is evident, of course, that until His coming again, i.e., until the 
direct and universal and definitive revelation of His glory, there 
can be no question of anything more than signs of His lordship or 
attestations of His prophecy, whether in Scripture, in the confession 
and message of the community, or in such true words as pierce the 
secularism of the worldly life surrounding it in closer or more distant 
proximity. If we may compare the truth of the one Word of God, 
which is called and is Jesus Christ, with the centre of a circle and yet 
also with the whole of the periphery constituted by it, we shall have 
to say that the revelation of this centre as such and therefore of this 
whole periphery, now to the faith of believers and one day to the 
vision of all eyes, can only be His direct Word, whereas all human 
words can be true only as its genuine witnesses and attestations. 
Prior to the song of praise which will ring out on a new earth under 
a new heaven, the centre of the circle as such and its whole periphery, 
and therefore the truth of the one Word of God, Jesus Christ Himself, 
cannot be articulated or expressed by any word or voice of angels, 
and certainly not of men, whether it be prophets or apostles or very 
profoundly instructed and instructive fathers, whether it be an en- 
lightened Christian mysticism or a theologia viatorum which is ever so 
notable in its simplicity or dialectic. Self-evidently, therefore, it 
cannot be articulated or expressed by the words and voices which, in 
virtue of the sovereignty of the one Lord, Prophet and Revealer, may 
even now be uttered and heard outside the sphere of the Bible and 
the Church. In them we have to do with the one truth, and therefore 
with genuine witnesses and attestations. But, to take up our illus- 
tration, they are only segments and not the whole of the periphery, 
and they are certainly not the centre of the circle which constitutes 
the periphery. They are true words, genuine witnesses and attesta- 
tions of the one true Word, real parables of the kindom of heaven, if 
and to the extent that, unlike segments of other circles with other 
centres, as true segments of the periphery of this circle they point 
to the whole of the periphery and therefore to the centre, or rather to 



2. The Light of Life 123 

the extent that the centre and therefore the whole of the periphery, 
i.e., Jesus Christ Himself, declares Himself in them. Hence they do 
not express partial truths, for the one truth of Jesus Christ is indivis- 
ible. Yet they express the one and total truth from a particular 
angle, and to that extent only implicitly and not explicitly in its 
unity and totality. As happens even in the different elements of the 
biblical witness, and as may happen in any act of Christian proclama- 
tion and instruction, they manifest the one light of the one truth with 
what is from one standpoint a particular refraction which as such is 
still a faithful reflection of it as the one light. But if they are to do 
this in their particular and individual way, they need to be enlightened 
by the light of this Word itself, and to draw upon its fulness. Spoken 
and received abstractly, none of them can be a true word of itself. 
They are true words only as they refer back to their origin in the one 
Word, i.e., as the one true Word, Jesus Christ Himself, declares 
Himself in them. They are true words in their presupposed and 
implied, if not always immediately apparent, connexion with the 
totality of Jesus Christ and His prophecy, and therefore as they 
indirectly point to this, or as this indirectly declares itself in 
them. 

One such true word may, e g., speak of the goodness of the original creation, 
a second of its jeopardising, a third of its liberation, a fourth of the future revela- 
tion of its glory. Each does this authentically if and as and to the extent that 
what it says individually and specifically is only apparently and at a first hearing 
an abstraction, but really declares the goodness, peril, triumph and future glory 
of the divine work of creation which is enclosed in Jesus Christ, executed in Him 
and directed towards Him, so that, even though it may seem to be concerned with 
only individual aspects, it really declares the totality of this work and the whole 
context of the particular statements. Again, such a true word may speak of the 
majesty or the mercy or the all-sustaining and directing wisdom and patience 
of God. In spite of its apparent abstraction, it does so authentically to the extent 
that the one thing envisaged under all these aspects is the kingdom and deity 
of the one living God who as the Father in the Son and by the Holy Ghost is 
at work in the world and revealed in His Word, and therefore to the extent that 
the life and kingdom of His Godhead are declared in all these statements with 
their particular orientation. Again, such a true word may speak of the psycho- 
physical or social determination of man, or of his defects, rights or dignity, 
or perhaps of the forgiveness of his sins, or the marching orders which he is given, 
or the shadow of death under which he lives, or the joy in which he may live 
even under this shadow, and it does so authentically to the extent that the 
abstraction or isolation of what it says is only apparent, since each in its own 
way points beyond itself to that centre and totality, and therefore to Jesus 
Christ the true Son of Man, and therefore to the true humanity of God, and 
therefore, or rather, to the One whom no single human word will declare, but to 
whom each may well point, so that He for His part may well declare Himself 
in such words, making them the instruments, signs and attestations of His self- 
revelation and therefore of His truth. 

In this qualified sense there are true human words in the Bible, 
and there may also be such, not only in the proclamation of the 



124 6 9- The Glor y f * he Mediator 

Church, but even in the words and voices of world-occurrence in its 
closer or more distant proximity to the Church. The clear task of 
speaking such true words, and the clear promise of the necessary 
freedom and power, are given to the Church and thus to ourselves. 
We have no knowledge of any similar tasks or promises given to 
representatives of secular history as such. Hence we cannot see or 
understand how a man may be, or come to be, in a position to speak 
true words in this qualified sense from the outer or inner spheres of 
secular darkness. But the circle of what we can see and understand 
is not the frontier of the sovereignty of Jesus Christ. Even within this 
circle the speaking of true words implies a miracle. We cannot think 
that, on the basis of the task accepted by us and the promise given to 
us, He is limited to this gift and commission of ours. We must 
thus be prepared to see His sovereignty at work in these other spheres, 
even though we cannot see or understand it. We must be prepared 
to hear, even in secular occurrence, not as alien sounds but as 
segments of that periphery concretely orientated from its centre and 
towards its totality, as signs and attestations of the lordship of the 
one prophecy of Jesus Christ, true words which we must receive as 
such even thought they come from this source. In view of their 
origin, it is obvious and understandable that we should suspect that 
they do not have this orientation, that in their abstraction and refrac- 
tion they have nothing whatever to do with the truth. It is obvious 
and understandable that we should fear all kinds of lurking dangers 
which might overwhelm us if we listen to them. These fears and 
suspicions may often prove to be justified. But in no case must they 
be stronger than our confidence, not in the potentialities of world 
history, nor in individual men, but in the sovereignty of Jesus Christ 
who also understands those who are without. In no case must it be 
stronger than the readiness to hear, and to test whether what is 
heard is perhaps a true word which Christianity cannot ignore as such, 
as though Jesus Christ were bound to its own task and promise, or as 
though this task and promise were a possession behind which it could 
and should conceal itself with closely stopped ears. Has it not always 
been true that the community has always had cause and opportunity 
to hear in the nearer or more distant world around it words which 
are at least well worth testing whether or not they are perhaps true 
words, and in which it will sooner or later recognise with joy some- 
thing of its own most proper message, or perhaps be forced to recognise 
this with shame, because by them it is shown and made to realise 
the omissions and truncations of its own message ? Has it not 
frequently been set before the fact of a secularism which, even though 
it may sometimes be openly pagan, has yet made just as clear and 
definite as itself certain aspects of the truth which it is entrusted to 
proclaim, and often indeed has attested them far better, more quickly 
and more consistently than it seems to have done ? 



2. The Light of Life 125 

We may think of the mystery of God, which we Christians so easily talk 
away in a proper concern for our own cause. We may think of the peace of 
creation, or its very puzzling nature, and the consequent summons to gratitude. 
We may think of the radicalness of the need of redemption or the fulness of what 
is meant by redemption if it is to meet this need. We may think of the sobriety 
of a scholarly or practical and everyday investigation of the true state of affairs, 
or the enthusiasm with which what is found to be correct is espoused. We may 
think of the unity of faith and life, of the love of God and the love of man, which 
can never be taken for granted even in the Christian community at any given 
time or place. We may think of the totality of human existence as this is con- 
tinually disrupted by a strict Christianity through too great an emphasis on the 
spirit or the individual. We may think of the disquiet, not to be stilled by any 
compromise, at the various disorders both of personal life and of that of the state 
and society, at those who are inevitably driven to the wall. We may think of 
the resolute determination, perhaps, to attack these evils. We may think of the 
lack of fear in face of death which Christians to their shame often display far 
less readily than non-Christians near and far. We may think of the warm readi- 
ness to understand and forgive which is not so frequently encountered even in 
the Evangelical world just because it has too good a knowledge of good and evil 
and in spite of its acknowledgment that justification is by faith alone. Especially 
we may think of a humanity which does not ask or weigh too long with whom 
we are dealing in others, but in which we find a simple solidarity with them and 
unreservedly take up their case. Are not all these phenomena which with 
striking frequency are found extra mutos ecclesiae, in circles where little or nothing 
is obviously known of the Bible and Church proclamation except perhaps by 
very devious ways and in very attenuated forms ? Is there nothing to be learned 
from these phenomena ? However alien their forms, is not their language that 
of true words, the language of " parables of the kingdom of heaven " ? 

To be sure, what is seen and heard must be tested. This is a 
duty which is not to be evaded. In this sphere, too, we have to reckon 
with human pride, sloth and falsehood, with an optimism and pessi- 
mism which are terribly far from the truth, with unconscious blindness 
and only too conscious hypocrisy. But these are encountered intra 
muros as well. In neither case should we be too summary in our 
judgments. It is no fair test if we dismiss these words in advance on 
the ground that we have in them only the basically and finally un- 
illuminating insights and virtues of the natural man and therefore 
splendida vitia, or that we see in them hasty conclusions and illusions, 
or that they are not exempt from the open or secret fanaticism which 
the children of the world can also display in their best achievements. 
This may all be very true. But it may also be quite irrelevant if it is 
nevertheless given to certain children of the world to speak true 
words, i.e., words which, whatever their subjective presuppositions, 
stand objectively in a supremely direct relationship with the one 
true Word, which are not exhausted by what they are in themselves, 
which may even speak against themselves, but which are laid upon 
their lips by the one true Word, by Jesus Christ, who is their Sovereign 
too. Even in Christian circles is it not grace and miracle, and the 
continual transcending of a whole mass of subjective ineptitude and 
distortion, if trus words are spoken and heard ? Should we not 



126 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

always ask with great attention and the greatest openness whether 
on the basis of the same miracle true words may not also be spoken 
without, and seriously recognised as such ? 

Criteria are certainly needed to distinguish them from other 
words which do not derive from the light which lightens the darkness 
but from the darkness itself, so that they can only be regarded as 
untrue words. Criteria are needed to distinguish the truth of true 
words themselves from the untruth which will also cling to them. 
We have already touched on these criteria, but we must now mention 
and characterise them more explicitly as such. 

First, there is a formal criterion which rightly understood derives 
its critical force from the fact that it also reveals the decisive material 
norm which we must apply in this connexion. Wherever we seem to 
have a true word in some phenomenon of nearer or more distant 
occurrence, we must always ask concerning its agreement with the 
witness of Scripture. Naturally, we cannot expect that in its concrete 
form it will be anticipated and therefore confirmed in a biblical text 
or passage. But we should expect that, if it is a true word, its message 
will harmonise at some point with the whole context of the biblical 
message as centrally determined and characterised by Jesus Christ, 
that when it is compared with this it will not disturb or disrupt its 
general line but rather illuminate it in a new way at some particular 
point. No true word can replace the biblical witness in any respect. 
It cannot try to suppress or to emulate it. It cannot try to say any- 
thing different or new. In the measure in which it shows a tendency 
in this direction, it will not be a true word. If it is a true word, it 
will be a good and authentic commentary sounding out the word of 
the Bible. It will not lead its hearers away from Scripture, but more 
deeply into it. Whether or not the whole process is right and legitimate 
may thus be tested in detail by whether or not some artificial har- 
monisation is needed to bring it into line with the Bible ; by whether 
or not it is in agreement with the Bible just as it stands, without any 
adaptation ; and supremely by whether or not the word of the Bible 
needs to be compressed, truncated or expanded to permit of genuine 
concord with this word from without. To the extent that the word 
of the Bible, perceived and understood in the light of its centre, is in 
evident and easily displayed agreement with these words from without, 
to this extent we may confidently believe that the latter are true 
words, and thus be ready for obedience, in the direction indicated, not 
to the words as such, but to the word of Scripture illuminated and 
made more pressing by them. 

With certain qualifications we must also consider the relationship 
of these other words to the dogmas and confessions of the Church as 
a criterion of their truth. They must certainly be tested by this 
norm. Yet we should not forget that, in contrast to Holy Scripture 
with its direct authority based on a direct relationship to the history 



2. r The Light of Life 127 

of Israel and that of Jesus Christ Himself, we are now dealing with 
the secondary authority of the fathers and brethren of the Church, 
with an introduction to the divine revelation attested in Scripture 
which is highly venerable but still conditioned by the particular 
times and circumstances in which these documents had their origin. 
In due fulfilment of the Fifth Commandment, we can and should 
take this introduction into account when we test the content of truth 
in these other words. If they are true words, they will not lead us 
away from, but more deeply into, the communio sanctorum of all ages 
which is attested in these documents. If they lead to a breach with 
them, they will show themselves to be false words. But it may well 
be that the Christian community, assuming that it hears such true 
words here and now, has still new things to hear and learn which go 
beyond its dogmas and confessions and which the fathers and brethren 
could not teach it in the days when these documents were formulated. 
If these new things, and therefore the truth of these words, are 
authentic, it may well be expected that their light will somehow be 
an extension of the line visible in the dogmas and confessions, so that 
they supplement even though they do not contradict what is stated 
by them. Indeed, when it is a matter of true words, we can hardly 
expect that the Church will be spared having to add to this line and 
therefore to learn something which goes beyond its dogmas and 
confessions, which is not to be learned directly from them or from 
its own inner movements, but which it is given by its Lord to learn 
afresh from without. It will not do to close ourselves to such words, 
or to question their truth, because they seem to say what is additional 
to or different from what we already think we know from the dogmas 
and confessions. For we might at any time be brought to see that 
these traditional norms of the Church need to be revised, and the 
Church might perhaps be confronted by the task of a new formulation 
,of these norms. If they are true words, they will show themselves to 
be such by the fact that, as more or less powerful elements in the 
progress of the Church, they will guide it, not to break continuity 
with the insights of preceding fathers and brethren, but in obedience 
to the one Lord of the Church and in the discipleship of the prophets 
and apostles to take it up and continue it with new responsibility on 
the basis of better instruction. 

As a further criterion in the question of their truth we may refer 
to the fruits which such true words have borne and seem to bear in 
the outside world where they have their more or less strange and 
puzzling origin, i.e., in the secular world surrounding the community. 
It is there that they are first heard and have their first effects. And 
there, in world-occurrence as such, all cats are not grey, but the Church 
can distinguish, if not the good from the bad, at least the better from 
the worse. Christianity cannot be blind or indifferent to the question 
of the significance for world-occurrence as such of the utterance and 



128 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

reception of such words which give even itself cause to think. How do 
they appear to work in this sphere ? What spirits do they seem to 
evoke ? In what direction do they impel men ? In what sense do they 
form their thoughts and aspirations and modes of conduct ? To what 
enterprises and actions have they summoned them ? Have they led 
to their greater freedom or their greater bondage ? Have they 
uplifted them a little, or thrust them deeper into the mire ? Have 
they united them or divided them ? Have they built up or thrown 
down, gathered or scattered, quickened or slain ? In relation to 
world-occurrence generally these are certainly no more than relative 
distinctions, since they are made and obtain only within the lost 
condition which marks all that man does as such. Yet in all their 
relativity they acquire emphasis and significance by the fact that in 
them, too, the ruling hand of God and His Christ is active and dis- 
played. In the expectation that in them His grace and judgment will 
at least be sketched in outline, if not revealed, we cannot as Christians 
escape the task of taking them seriously for all their relativity, and 
therefore of looking cautiously but resolutely for the difference in the 
fruits of these words uttered in world-occurrence, and of judging their 
manner and tendency accordingly. If for the most part we can see 
and understand these only as less good fruits, we may readily suspect 
that there is little or no truth in the words which produce them. 
But if we may cautiously discern better fruits, this may well be a 
sign that there is a positive relationship between the words which 
have produced them and the one Word of truth, so that in them we 
have to do with true words. It will be appreciated that, since we 
men, even we Christians, are not instituted or endowed to be judges 
of the world, there can be no question here of a criterion which even 
with the greatest circumspection can be applied with convincing 
power. Yet in all its relativity it certainly renders good service of 
at least a supplementary and auxiliary nature in relationship to the 
other criteria. In this relationship it may even be an absolute and 
convincing criterion on some occasions. We have thus to keep our 
eyes open in this direction. 

We return to surer ground when we maintain that these other 
words may be recognised as true words by what they signify for the 
life of the community itself, for its activity under the special command 
and promise of its Lord. If in these words, as distinct from the many 
others which are uttered and heard in history, we have that which is 
right, then, in correspondence with what the true word of Scripture 
means for the community, they will have for it in indissoluble unity 
the character of affirmation and criticism, of address and claim, of a 
summons to faith and a call to repentance, and therefore of Gospel 
and Law. They will show themselves to be genuine parables of the 
kingdom in this unity. In it they will betray the fact that they are 
human words which have their final origin and meaning in the 



2. The Light of Life 129 

awakening power of the universal prophecy of Jesus Christ Himself. 
The community will thus find itself comforted by them as through 
them it discovers that in and in spite of the strangeness of its message 
it is not alone nor thrown back solely upon itself, but encounters in the 
outside world voices which perhaps answer its own, or are perhaps 
independent and original in their origin and nature, but which with 
their own particular determination and orientation seem to take up 
its own word and declare it in their own manner and speech, less 
strongly and authentically perhaps, yet sometimes more forcefully 
and in their own way more convincingly than in its own particular 
manner it has so far been able to accomplish, and at any rate in such 
sort that it is stimulated and encouraged to give the world its own 
commissioned word with greater joy and emphasis. If in its weakness 
and confusion it is comforted and encouraged in this way by these 
other words, it may surely gather that in them it is dealing with true 
words. It will be shown, however, that this is genuine comfort and 
encouragement, and not false temptation and enticement, by the 
fact that the community is not merely confirmed and approved by 
these words, but also shamed, frightened, unsettled and corrected. 
Its proclamation and activity, its whole life, stood perhaps in need of 
concentration, or extension, or some consolidation or loosening of its 
present form. And now it seems to have received from without a 
surprising and perhaps not very welcome but salutary impulse in this 
direction. Why has it lagged behind when it ought to have been in 
the van ? Why has it not told itself what it must now learn from 
the children of this world ? When Christianity is called to repentance, 
it is a criterion that, no matter where the summons may come from 
or in what language, angry and offensive perhaps, it may be couched, 
it has to do with a true word addressed to it on the commission of its 
Lord. But we must be cautious. For even as a call to repentance it 
will be a true and genuine word only if it is also one which affirms 
and strengthens and upbuilds the community. There can be a respect, 
an anxious pliancy, in relation to the world's criticism of the Church, 
which is quite out of place because it is not related to a true word 
which the Church ought to hear. And it will be shown not to be a 
true word by the fact that it has no positive content, that it merely 
denies and destroys or discourages and confuses, that it merely aims 
at adaptations and compromises which the world desires for the 
Church. The true call to repentance, whether from within or from 
without, may always be known by the fact that the law and command 
critically addressed to the Church are those of the Gospel, by which 
the community is always raised up as well as cast down, not being 
plunged into a sterile melancholy, remorse and abasement, but 
stirred with new resolution and clarity to represent its good cause. 
The word which criticises the Church is true only if it is one by which 
the community is comforted in the true and New Testament sense. 
C.D. iv.-m.-i. 5 



130 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Hence we may recognise its truth by the fact that it concerns and 
activates Christians as Christians and the community as the com- 
munity in this twofold sense. A word which merely pacified and 
confirmed, or unsettled and shattered, would by its very nature reveal 
that it had nothing whatever to do with the one truth of Jesus Christ, 
that it was not then a true word, and that it should not therefore be 
heard. 

We now turn to the final question which must be put and answered 
in this narrower context. It concerns the right procedure in relation 
to such words, the right use to be made of them if they impress them- 
selves upon us as true words and show themselves to be such. Our 
general answer is that Christianity must avoid any pride or sloth in 
face of them. It must be ready to hear them, and it must do so. It 
must let them do the work laid upon them in relation to proclamation, 
instruction and the whole life of the community. If and to the extent 
that they are true words, they are free communications of the will 
of its Lord which it must not stiffly refuse but accept. Rather more 
concretely, it must receive them, as previously stated, as a commentary 
on Holy Scripture which is the primary and proper source of all 
knowledge of the Christian life, as a corrective of the tradition of the 
Church, and as an impulse to its reformation. 

But the more specific point is to be considered that the uttering 
and receiving of such true words is part of the history of the Church, 
or better of the history of its overruling, preservation and continual 
reformation by the One to whom it belongs, whose body or earthly- 
historical form of existence it is. In this history it experiences, in 
what must be described as the normal and regular form of the rule 
of its Head, His self-disclosure by His constant address, in the power 
of the Holy Spirit, through the witness of His prophets and apostles 
and therefore by means of the biblical word. But it also experiences, 
in extraordinary acts of His rule, His free communications in the 
parables of the kingdom which come to it through the general history 
of the world around it. By the very nature of the case the correct 
and prescribed procedure cannot be the same in relation to the latter 
as to the Bible, i.e., to His self -attestation mediated through the 
prophetic-apostolic word. 

The latter has the character of a constant and universal authority 
to the extent that, although the Bible is a source and norm which 
specifically addresses its readers and hearers in the power of the Holy 
Spirit, it is also an abiding whole which is given to the community 
throughout its history and in which Jesus Christ accompanies it 
through this history. Holy Scripture may be compared to the fiery 
cloud and pillar which in every age precedes the community and all 
its members as an invariably authentic direction to the knowledge of 
its Lord, to the gift which He gives and the accompanying task which 
He sets. It can and should be confessed always and everywhere and 



2. The Light of Life 131 

by all. It raises the claim to be heard, to be heard obediently and to 
be recognised as authoritative always and everywhere and by all. 
The biblical word is thus the concrete vinculum pads of the Church in 
every age and place. The community is always and everywhere 
summoned to regard its claim, to gather around its message, to pursue 
its investigation, exposition and application. We never do injury to a 
Christian or the community, nor are we in danger of leading a Christian 
astray, nor is it arbitrary but always and everywhere salutary and 
good, if we set ourselves and the community on the way which leads 
backwards or rather forwards to Holy Scripture. For since in Holy 
Scripture true words are always to be heard, this way is always the 
way backwards or rather forwards to Jesus Christ, to the one Word, 
to the reconciliation accomplished in Him, to the one covenant 
between Him and man, to the salvation effected and to be found in 
this covenant. However well or badly it may be followed, this way 
is always the good way, and to tread it is always and in all places 
commanded of the community and individual Christians, and is full of 
promise for them. As I see it, it is the regular way to which we are 
directed. 

The same cannot be said of the free communications of Jesus 
Christ in world events, or the true words which come to the com- 
munity through them. Indeed, we must not say this concerning 
them if we are to estimate them aright. Our handling of them, our 
listening to them, their recognition and authorisation in the life of 
the community, their significance and scope for its proclamation and 
instruction, must be determined and limited by the fact that in them 
we cannot have more than the voice of certain individual events and 
elements in world history as it unfolds through the long and kaleido- 
scopic sequence of the centuries, and in the history of the community 
within it. Even though they are uttered as products of the omni- 
potent prophecy of Jesus Christ, and are to be claimed and respected 
as true words, they lack the unity and compactness and therefore 
the constancy and universality of His self-revelation as it takes place 
and is to be sought in Holy Scripture. They are uttered in individual 
places and situations in which the community and its members find 
themselves in world history, at individual points in their history in 
this time which move to its end but still endures. Will what was said 
then and there be said again here and now in the same way ? It 
might be that something was said then and there to be heard and 
followed then and there. It might be that it was heard then and 
there and had its specific and salutary effect and rightly passed into 
its experience as something learned for the future. But it might also 
be that the community has still to receive very different words from 
world events as directed by its Lord, that here and now it must con- 
centrate its attention upon these, and that on occasion it must correct 
by what is said here and now its understanding of what was perceived 



132 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

then and there, and therefore the experience in possession of which it 
has come out of the past into the present and is moving to the future. 
Hence, in listening to what is said to it here and now, it will be attentive 
and obedient in all good conscience and to the best of its ability, 
allowing itself to be guided by it in that immediate future. Yet at 
the same time it will realise that what Jesus Christ says here and 
now is certainly not His final word of this kind, but that another 
time, not in self-contradiction but in a very different situation, He 
may well have another new word of this type. And in any case, it 
will be conscious of the imperfection and even disloyalty which were 
shown by itself and the fathers in the hearing of His true words in 
the past, and which are not so absent from its hearing to-day that it can 
tie itself and therefore its Lord to what it thinks it receives from Him 
here and now. 

It is also to be considered that, while these communications of 
Jesus Christ in world events apply virtually and potentially to the 
whole community and all its members, in this as in other respects 
(even in their relation to Scripture) it is not at all the case that at 
every time and in every situation the community is able and ready 
to hear with a single ear and receive with a single heart and will and 
understanding what is said to it by its Lord. On the contrary, it is 
always true in practice that even at best there will only be many, 
and often very few, who have the openness for such words which the 
community ought really to have as a whole. There are words which 
need decades and even centuries to be finally, and even then only 
approximately, heard and recognised throughout Christendom. Nor is 
this connected only with the natural stupidity of man generally or 
the special limitation which is often notably and most unfortunately 
displayed by the Christian. It is also linked with the fact that the 
truth of what seems in the first instance to be said only by world- 
occurrence as such, the character of its words as products of the 
omnipotent prophecy of Jesus Christ, is nowhere and never self- 
evident, so that, even though these words may be heard, their truth 
must always be tested by the criteria to which we have referred. It 
may be the very conscientiousness of this process of testing, the fear 
of falling victim to a subjective intuition or audition and therefore to 
an illusion, which in the first instance allows only a few and not all 
members of the community to accept and thus to be guided by what 
is heard. But however we explain it, the community hardly ever 
presents a unitary picture in its encounter with such true words of 
its Lord as He rules world history and impresses even the children of 
the world into His service. As a rule there will be only a more or less 
feeble vanguard of hearers which is persecuted by a large majority 
of non-hearers, and an apparently not inconsiderable rearguard of 
those who never seem to hear aright in this respect. Indeed, is it 
not even possible that true words may sometimes be spoken and 



2. The Light of Life 133 

they are not received at all in the community, or by any of its 
members ? 

The distinctiveness of these free communications of Jesus Christ 
consists (i) in the fact that they come to the Church in a specific time 
and situation, and are to be heard in these circumstances, but in 
other times and situations their scope and significance for the Church 
are an open question to be answered only in the course of its history 
and not without the utterance and reception of other words of this 
kind. It consists (2) in the fact that, assuming they are received at 
all, their reception is never in practice an affair of the whole com- 
munity and all its members, but they are usually regarded as authori- 
tative only by certain smaller or larger sections and occasionally only 
by a few individuals. These two characteristics make it quite evident 
that the right use of these free communications of the Lord can never 
be regarded as other than extraordinary. But this means that we 
cannot treat them like Holy Scripture, even though as true words 
they can only confirm and illustrate Holy Scripture. Hence, even 
when in a given time and place a few or many or even the majority in 
the community are convinced of their truth, they cannot be fixed 
and canonised as the Word of the Lord. That is, they cannot be 
regarded and proclaimed as a source and norm of knowledge which is 
valid at all times, in all places, and for all. And they certainly cannot 
be collected, and assembled as words of universal authority, and as 
such laid alongside Scripture as a kind of second Bible. They may 
be issued and received here and there, yesterday, to-day and to-morrow. 
But neither individually nor corporately can they be given universal 
and normative authority as a source of revelation. They themselves 
are opposed to such a process and avoid such a misuse. Their parti- 
cularity as described above forbids us to handle them in this way. 
And the consequences of such a misuse might be catastrophic. If 
the modern Church were to attempt to canonise a free communication 
of its Lord in this way, it would become a different Church from that 
of yesterday which did not yet have it and therefore did not know this 
new canon. And there might well arise a Church which recognised 
this communication and another which did not, the vinculum pads 
being broken between them if the former claimed universal validity 
and obligatoriness for its insight and confession. And since in practice 
there can seldom if ever be a free acknowledgment of such a com- 
munication by all members of the community, the results could only 
be disastrous if some presented it to others as a binding law, demanding 
that they should hear it with them as the voice of Jesus Christ, whereas 
for various reasons the latter could not regard it as anything more 
than the clamour of secular history. Finally, the possibility cannot 
be ruled out that we are deceived when we think we have received 
such an extraordinary communication from Jesus Christ ; that we 
are confusing the voice of a stranger with His voice ; that we are 



134 6g The Glory of the Mediator 

regarding a bit of darkness as the true light ; or that we are really 
hearing His voice but either totally or partially misinterpreting it. 
Supposing that in these circumstances we were permitted or even 
commanded to declare that what we think we have received is a 
word of revelation, and to place it as such alongside Holy Scripture ? 
The supposed freedom for this encroachment was and is even to this 
day the formal possibility of all heresies and schisms, of the formation 
of all kinds of sects and parties, of all temptations and enticements, of 
all falsifications of the Gospel and therefore of the Christian life. We 
may thus conclude that no conviction, however profound or joyous, 
as to the authenticity of such a free communication of Jesus Christ 
can authorise either the community or any of its members to give 
their discovery the exalted status of a dogma or to enforce it on 
others as if it were such. This is something which the community must 
not do in any circumstances. 

In accordance with the extraordinary nature which always char- 
acterises them, these true words can and should be made fruitful in 
and for the community. If they are really true, and we have certainly 
to reckon with this possibility, why should they not do this without 
being given any canonical or dogmatic status ? Their work will 
consist in leading the community at all times and places, and in all 
its members, more deeply into the given word of the Bible as the 
authentic attestation of the Word of Jesus Christ Himself. They will 
make a contribution to the strengthening, extending and defining of 
the Christian knowledge which draws from this source and is measured 
by this norm, to the lending of new seriousness and cheerfulness to the 
Christian life and new freedom and concentration to the delivery of 
the Christian message. We may let them do this work without the 
pretension of acquiring from them new tables or of being empowered 
and obligated by them to proclaim such tables. They do not need this 
to accomplish what they can and should accomplish. Why should 
not those to whom it is given to receive these true words confess 
them with gratitude, sincerity and resolution, yet also with the 
humility which is required at this point too ? Why should they have 
to claim them as revelations and make of them a law for themselves 
and others ? Is it not enough if they are actually heard and followed ? 
To be sure, those who receive them should stand by their insight to 
the extent that they are sure of their ground. They should not keep 
it to themselves. They should hold it up as an invitation and summons 
to others, to the whole community, to share it with them. But they 
should do this in such a way that they allow the fact of the instruction 
received from them to speak for itself. They should show themselves 
to be such as have heard a true word and been radically smitten by it. 
They should bring forth the appropriate fruits. And then, with a 
readiness to be corrected, they should leave it to the power of this 
true word, by the ministry (and not the assertive claim) of its con- 



2. The Light of Life 135 

fession, to cause its truth to shine to others and to awaken its recogni- 
tion and confession in them too. If it is a true word, the time will 
inevitably come sooner or later when it can make its way and do its 
work in and to the whole community. As it is really spoken in world 
history, and in the measure that it is really received in the community, 
it will certainly do this work in and to it. The more certain the com- 
munity or individuals within it are of their knowledge of such a word, 
the greater should be their confidence in its own power, and the more 
boldly yet also the more modestly will they make known their know- 
ledge. For in these circumstances it will definitely not have been 
spoken or received in vain. 

In conclusion, it is to be noted that, surprising though it may seem, in our 
whole development of the problem of these other words we have not adduced 
a single example, nor quoted a single name, nor mentioned an event or trend or 
movement, nor referred to a new and singular or common and general phenomenon 
in political, social, intellectual, academic, artistic, literary, moral or religious 
life, to which there might be ascribed the character of a true word of this kind. 
As distinct from Zwingli, who appealed to Hercules, Theseus, Socrates, Cicero 
and others, we have deliberately refrained from doing this. This is not because 
dogmatics, let alone the dogmatician, is forbidden in a particular context to 
point to this or that person or event or enterprise or book which is obviously 
outside the sphere of the Bible and the Church, and to draw attention to what is 
genuinely true in it And self-evidently there can be no reason why the Christian 
preacher, teacher or writer, or indeed the Christian generally, should not do so. 
Our own concern, however, has been with the basic question whether and how 
far we may reckon with true words of this kind both in theory and in practice. 
But for a radical investigation of this question we have had to set aside anything 
that might distract from the matter itself. None of the concrete phenomena 
which arise in this connexion is as such the matter under consideration. All 
such phenomena are doubtful and contestable What is not doubtful and 
con testable is the prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ and its almighty power to 
bring forth such true words even extra muros ecclesiae and to attest itself through 
them. This and this alone is the matter to be treated. Hence it is right and 
proper that we should avoid giving even the impression that dogmatics can and 
should make pronouncements on matters on which He has already spoken or 
will perhaps do so. It is for this reason that no examples have been given. 

At the conclusion of this sub-section we must make a delimitation 
which is essential to a true and keen yet also confident understanding 
of everything thus far said. In everything thus far said our concern 
has been with the basic christological form of the event of reconciliation 
between God and man from its third standpoint, namely, the prophetic 
work of Jesus Christ. This will still be so in the necessary delimitation. 
Reduced to the simplest formula, what we have said is that Jesus 
Christ was, is and will be the light of life, and because the light of 
life, of His own reconciling life, therefore and to that extent the 
one light incomparable in its majesty and authority. The implications 
of this twofold statement have been developed already. Hence we 
need not recapitulate them, but may take them as recognised and 



136 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

understood. But if this twofold statement is to express and underlie 
fruitful Christian knowledge and responsible Christian confession, it 
must be understood both keenly and confidently. This is necessary 
for its proper distinction in relation to another statement which is 
different from it, yet also related to it and both possible and necessary 
alongside it. By " keenly " we mean that it must be made clear 
how it does in fact differ from this other statement. By " confidently " 
we mean that it must be shown to what extent it has this other state- 
ment with its particular content beside it, not excluding but in the 
true sense including and necessitating it. 

In this second statement we are not concerned with the light of 
life, with the gracious light of reconciliation, and therefore with the 
one true light. As we shall see, its primary basis and ultimate meaning 
are centred in Jesus Christ, and can be understood only in relation to 
Him. Yet its particular content is not directly but only in this 
indirect sense christological. First and last it is possible, tenable, 
fruitful and helpful only in relation to Jesus Christ. It is included 
in what is to be said concerning Him. Yet in its immediate and most 
obvious content, in which its distinctiveness consists, it is not a state- 
ment concerning Him nor a further development nor description of 
the assertion that He is the one true light and Word of life. As a 
specific declaration it rather accompanies and to that extent con- 
fronts this statement. If it is understandable only in this confronta- 
tion, and therefore in this relationship, it refers to a very different 
subject. It has to do with lights, and in a qualified sense with words, 
truths and even " revelations/ 1 but not with the self -revelations of 
God. Thus we are not to think in the first instance of the light of the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, nor of His truth as it is to be known in 
the power of the Holy Spirit, nor of the light of His self-attestation 
in the word of His prophets and apostles, nor of the extraordinary 
self-attestations of Jesus Christ in world history a distinction which 
must be underlined in relation to the preceding discussion. 

It is not at all a matter of the light, truth or word of any specific 
events. We can speak of the being, activity and speech of Jesus 
Christ only in relation to specific events, only in the form of the narra- 
tion of a history and histories. If Christology as the depiction of this 
being, activity and speech is to be anything more than an obscure 
metaphysics, in all its parts and aspects it can be only the unfolding 
of a drama. Nor can we denote or describe in any other way that 
which is found in Holy Scripture or the extraordinary self -attesta- 
tions of Jesus Christ. Yet there is also a theatre and setting for His 
being, activity and speech, and therefore for this history or drama. 
This theatre is not itself a history. It is not immovable, rigid or 
lifeless. Yet it is basically the same at all stages in the history. It 
cannot, then, be described in the form of the narration of a history 
and histories. If it has life, its life as such is not the reconciling life 



2. The Light of Life 137 

of Jesus Christ. It is the sphere in which, the object in relation to 
which, and the medium by means of which, it is played out. It exists 
in events. Yet in it we have a sequence and repetition of the same 
events, or of events which are so similar that there can be no question 
of a decisive difference between one and another, let alone of any one 
being comparable or identical with the event of reconciliation, or 
with any of the events in which the Church lives and there arises the 
faith and obedience of the Christian. It is only in the form of the 
events in which this theatre or setting also exists, in the form of 
certain of these events, that against this background there take place 
reconciliation, the life of the Church and the awakening to faith and 
obedience. On a theological estimation the important thing in the 
existence of this theatre and setting is not the fact that histories 
are found in it too, but that, even when seen and understood as history, 
it is a sequence and repetition of the same or very similar events. 
The important thing is that in this field we have dominant lines, 
continuities and constants which characterise the whole. This theatre 
cannot be identified with the being, activity and speech of Jesus 
Christ, nor with its regular mediation in Scripture and the existence 
of the community, nor with the extraordinary forms of His presence 
and action. For if there are not lacking lines and continuities and 
constants in the life and work of Jesus Christ too, the theologically 
significant thing in this case is that along these lines we are dealing 
with history, with concrete events, not with the general features 
which they share but the particularity with which they take place in 
this way here and now. The problem of the setting of the reconciling 
life of Jesus Christ, and therefore of His light, of His prophetic Word, 
certainly cannot be stated, examined or meaningfully answered 
except with reference to these particular happenings and in the light 
of them. But in connexion with these it is a problem of its own 
demanding independent consideration. 

We speak of creation, of the creatura which is distinct from God 
yet actualised by Him, of the creaturely world. This was foreseen 
in the eternal election of Jesus Christ, and specifically called into being 
in the beginning and as itself the beginning of all things, to be the 
theatre and setting, the location and background, of the ordinary and 
extraordinary mediation of His life and work. In the words of Calvin, 
it is the theatrum gloriae Dei, the external basis of the covenant which 
conversely is its internal basis (C.D., III, i, 41). So long as the 
terms are filled out theologically in this way, it can be called the cosmos 
or nature. What is meant is the unity and totality of celestial and 
terrestrial creation, and within this of non-human and human, and 
within this again of physical and psychical. What is meant is the 
unity and totality of the reality distinct from God yet willed and 
posited by Him ; creaturely esse and nosse as mutually related 
and conditioned. In the setting and framework of this unity and 



138 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

totality there takes place the life of Jesus Christ and therefore recon- 
ciliation, the event of salvation. It is the presupposition of this 
event. It surrounds it on all sides. It is the ground on which and 
the atmosphere in which it takes place. Indeed, it is the object to 
which it relates. It is also its indispensable material and instrument. 
In all these things it is distinct from it. And this persistent distinc- 
tiveness of creation, the cosmos, nature, even human nature, from 
reconciliation, is its constancy. The creaturely world naturally 
displays many modifications and variations. It has its own dynamic 
and movements. But it is dominated and characterised by the rota- 
tion and return of many things which are the same or very similar. 
Reconciliation does not take place in this rotation. It impinges upon 
and determines it from without. It is a new thing in relation to the 
moving and moved being of the cosmos. Not for nothing is it called 
a new creation. In the life of the cosmos as such there does not take 
place anything basically new. Its origin, purpose and goal in God are 
marked by the fact that it should be steadfast. Even the sin of man 
cannot shake its constancy, whether by way of diminution, addition 
or alteration. But as it was and will be, it becomes a corrupted world 
by reason of man's sin, falling under the divine curse and being 
enveloped in darkness. Again, its constancy and essence are not 
altered even by reconciliation, even by the establishment, realisation 
and fulfilment of the covenant of grace between God and man, even 
by the life and work of Jesus Christ. But as it was and will be, in 
Jesus Christ it comes under a new determination. Creatura, the 
creaturely world as such, persists both as the sphere and place of sin 
and also as the sphere and place of the reconciliation accomplished 
and being accomplished in Jesus Christ. Elected, willed and posited 
once and for all by God, it is the one reality of heaven and earth, of 
space and time, of being and cognition, in dynamic but steadfast and 
indissoluble relationship. To the faithfulness of the Creator, which 
is His free grace manifesting itself as faithfulness, there corresponds 
the persistence and constancy of the creature. The man upon whom 
and the sphere within which God acts as Reconciler are those elected, 
willed and posited once and for all by God. As man's Creator, in His 
faithfulness as such, and as He thus gives persistence and constancy 
to man and his sphere, God is also his Reconciler. It is with man as 
he remains the same in his inner and outer nature that God concludes, 
maintains and fulfils the covenant of grace. If what He does as the 
Founder and Lord of this covenant is not the same as what He does 
as Creator, He does not do either without the other, but does both 
simultaneously and in co-ordination. The work of His creative grace 
has in view His reconciling grace. But the converse is also true, so 
that He is always the Guarantor, Sustainer and Protector of His 
creaturely world, of the cosmos or nature, thus giving it constancy in 
the being with which He endowed it at creation. 



2. The Light of Life 139 

It is here that there is to be found the basis, possibility and 
necessity of the other statement which has its own place and justifica- 
tion alongside the assertion that Jesus Christ is the one light of life, 
from which the latter assertion is distinct, which is not therefore 
to be confused or identified with it, yet which is not expunged nor 
rendered invalid nor meaningless by it, but the proper evaluation of 
which in relation to it is the theological task to which we must now 
briefly apply ourselves. 

The simple point is that the creaturely world, the cosmos, the 
nature given to man in his sphere and the nature of this sphere, has 
also as such its own lights and truths and therefore its own speech 
and words. That the world was and is and will be, and what and 
how it was and is and will be, thanks to the faithfulness of its Creator, 
is declared and attested by it and may thus be perceived and heard 
and considered. Its witness and declaration may be missed or more 
or less dreadfully misunderstood. But it is given with the same per- 
sistence as creation itself endures thanks to the faithfulness of its 
Creator. It is given, therefore, quite irrespective of whether the man 
whom it addresses in its self-witness knows or does not know, con- 
fesses or denies, that it owes this speech no less than its persistence 
to the faithfulness of its Creator. Like its persistence, its self-witness 
and lights are not extinguished by the corruption of the relationship 
between God and man through the sin of man, his pride and sloth and 
falsehood. However corrupt man may be, they illumine him, and 
even in the depths of his corruption he does not cease to see and 
understand them. It is true that by the shining of the one true light 
of life, by the self-revelation of God in Jesus Christ, they are exposed 
and characterised as lights, words and truths of the created cosmos, 
and therefore as created lights in distinction from this one light. Yet 
as such they are not extinguished by this light, nor are their force 
and significance destroyed. On the contrary, as the cosmos persists 
in all its forms and media before, during and after the epiphany of 
Jesus Christ, so it shines, speaks and attests itself before, during and 
after this event. The truth given it by God in and with its actuality 
endures. It does not do so independently of the epiphany of Jesus 
Christ. But it does so independently of man's relationship and 
attitude to the latter. As the divine work of reconciliation does not 
negate the divine work of creation, nor deprive it of meaning, so it 
does not take from it its lights and language, nor tear asunder the 
original connexion between creaturely esse and creaturely nosse. 

It might be suggested that in order to avoid confusion, to distinguish these 
lights from God's own self-revelation, and to emphasise their persistence, we 
should not speak of the lights but rather of the luminosity of the creaturely 
world, and avoid altogether the use of the term revelation. Now we are certainly 
speaking of the persistent luminosity of the world as opposed to the obscuring 
by sin of human vision, yet also as distinct from man's enlightenment by the 



140 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

light of God Himself. But when we remember that in the creation story the 
account of the fourth day (Gen. I 14f -), m interesting contrast to that of the first 
(Gen. i w -)f specifically refers to " lights," there seems to be no reason why we 
should not do the same. The creaturely world, which is only the theatrum 
glonae Dei, only the place where His own glory shines in the work of reconciliation 
in which He Himself becomes man, has distinct glories or lights of its own which 
as such are its own words and truths. And we shall see that there are many of 
these. It does not have them of itself. It receives them from its Creator. But 
receiving them from Him, it has them, and they are its own lights, words and 
truths. Dangerous modern expressions like the " revelation of creation " or 
" primal revelation " might be given a clear and unequivocal sense in this respect 
which they do not usually have in common parlance. They are its own revela- 
tions, i.e., those of the creatura or Kriais itself. If this expression is to be used 
only very sparingly, it is not to be totally rejected in this sense and context. 
There is a luminosity of the creaturely world as and because it is not without 
lights which constantly shine and words and truths which are constantly per- 
ceptible in it, as and because it does not merely have but also does not conceal its 
persistence and distinctive being, continually disclosing it, making it visible, 
audible, perceptible and recognisable, and to this extent revealing it. The implied 
problem is perhaps seen and answered all the more keenly and confidently if we 
do not try to introduce a new terminology at this point. We are dealing with 
the light, the Word, the truth of God on the one side, and with the lights, the 
words, the truths of the world created by and distinct from Him on the other. 
Two verses of the morning hymn of J. Zwick may be recalled in this connexion : 

" The skies above are full of lights 
To light our life and its delights ; 
A beauteous order is displayed 
That honour to our God be paid. 

So in the eyes a light is ours 

To seek the good with all our powers, 

To turn and look to God always 

And note how gracious are His ways." 

What is (a) the nature and function of these lights, and (b) their relationship 
to the one light ? 

On the presupposition and under the condition and limitation 
that it is created and ruled by God, the world has its distinctive 
being. It belongs to this distinctiveness, however, that it is not merely 
in re but also in intellectu. On the same presupposition and under 
the same condition, elected, willed and posited as such by God, it is 
being which is known and knows, is seen and sees, is apprehended 
and apprehends. The limits entailed by the presupposition and con- 
dition appear at once in the fact that strictly and precisely we can 
understand it only as being which is known by man and knows in 
the person of man, whereas in the case of all other creatures we maj 
feel and suspect but cannot know that the being of the world is know- 
able to them, known by them and as this particular being able to know 
in and through them. We can and must be satisfied to know of man 
that the being of the world is one which is known by him and in this 
way knows its own being. In relation to man as pars pro toto we may 
say that the world created by God has truth in intellectu as well as in 



2. The Light of Life 141 

reality. We should be transgressing another of the frontiers set to 
its being if we were to maintain that it existed merely in intellects, 
and therefore, since we do not know of any other intellects, only in 
that of man. But we are on sure ground when we say that it does 
also exist in itellectu ; that it is being which is known, contemplated 
and apprehended by man, and therefore knows, contemplates and 
apprehends in man. The question whether the same might be true in 
respect of other creatures obviously cannot be answered in the negative, 
but since it cannot be answered in the affirmative either, it must be 
left open. 

With this limited but plain object in view, we may now make the 
further point that the world created by God does not merely exist but 
also speaks to one at least of its creatures, i.e., to man, giving itself 
to be perceived by him. And in this creature, in man, it does not 
merely exist but hears itself speak, receiving the message which it 
imparts. In respect of man it can and must be said that the world 
created by God is also (although not merely) a text which may be 
read and understood, and at the same time its own reader and expositor. 
Undeniable in the case of man, this quality of divinely created terrestrial 
being as esse etiam in intellects is what is meant when we speak of 
created lights which shine and may be seen, of words which are spoken 
and received, in and with the being of the creaturely world, of the 
truths valid in the reciprocity of converse between creature and 
creature. These do not light up the world with the same brightness 
as God does in His Word or as the world has in His sight and know- 
ledge. But they bring illumination. They prevent the world from 
being merely dark, or being plunged into absolute gloom by the sin 
of man. To them we owe it that in the distinctive darkness of the 
world (as compared with the light of God), and in the gloom caused 
by the sin of man, there is still a measure of brightness. As words 
of terrestrial being they are only terrestrial words, and as truths of 
terrestrial being they are only terrestrial truths. They are not, then, 
divine disclosures nor eternal truths. But since these words are 
actually spoken and heard, the world neither is nor can be absolutely 
dumb or deaf. The fact that they do not cease to be spoken and 
heard means that it can never be altogether without voice or reason, 
that even the worst communication does not completely fail to be 
communication and may perhaps become better. And for all the 
conceivable and actual error of man concerning God, his fellows and 
himself, their terrestrial truth in all its relativity is at least an obstacle 
to the onrush of chaos into the terrestrial life so severely threatened 
by these errors. For this reason it would be foolish to despise them. 
And we certainly cannot ignore or deny them. We actually live with 
them. We cannot live without them. It is as well, therefore, to be 
grateful to them. 

Now the feature common to all these lights, words and truths, to 



142 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

this intelligibility and intelligence of divinely created being, is formally 
the fact that they point to something lasting, persistent and constant. 
The very things which speak together endure through every change. 
On the one side there is the created world which in all its specific 
forms gives itself to be known, and is actually known, as what it 
always was and is and will be. On the other side, knowing this world 
and itself within it (either alone, or perhaps not alone, or it may be 
representatively), there is the human creature, individually fashioned, 
yet always as it was and is and will be with eyes and ears, with reason, 
emotion and conscience. Again, that of which they speak is enduring. 
What may be and is contemplated, conceived and known between 
this object which is also subject and this subject which is also object ; 
what is thus bright and audible and true, is always the one in the 
many, the general in the particular, the steadfast in change, the 
recurrent in alteration, the identical in the different. It is these lines, 
continuities and constants, or at least some of them, which the intelli- 
gible cosmos makes known to man and the intelligent cosmos actually 
comes to know and knows in man as it addresses its reason to the 
grasping of these lines, continuities and constants. It is a matter of 
making visible and actually seeing certain patterns of creaturely being 
in the sense of recurrent and ordered qualities and relationships. 
Declaring these, creaturely being displays its steadfastness ; receiving 
them, it strengthens itself. They cannot and do not have to be mathe- 
matical or other rational patterns and therefore " laws/' Neither the 
objective nor the subjective reason of the cosmos is exhausted m the 
declaration and perception of these. The one order at stake is not 
just uniform but multiform. It does not exclude the many, the 
particular, the change, the alteration, the diversity. It includes 
them, and this quite other than by the operation of a law. The only 
thing excluded is chaos. What it declares and apprehends are con- 
tours, models, orientations which as such have normative as well as 
individual force, and to that extent a terrestrial and relative though 
not a divine and absolute reliability the reliability needed if the 
cosmos is to be the cosmos and not chaos. This is what is at issue in 
the converse of the cosmos with itself, i.e., of the intelligible with the 
intelligent cosmos. This is what is achieved by the lights which shine 
in this converse, the words spoken, the truths made perceptible. As 
they point to this order and thus give these orientations, they shed a 
certain brightness in the darkness and resist the onslaught of gloom. 
They draw attention to something which counts, and must always be 
taken into account. 

It will be seen at once that they have nothing directly to do with 
the Word of reconciliation, with the prophecy of Jesus Christ. The 
guarantee that there is in the world something which counts, and must 
always be taken into account, does not end the moral strife of man 
against God, or cancel his sin, or save him from death. One reason 



2. The Light of Life 143 

why we might perhaps refrain from speaking of these guaranteeing 
lights as " revelation " is that no faith is needed to grasp them, but 
only an obvious and almost inevitable perception, only the application 
of the good but limited gift of common sense. In the converse which 
is that of the world with itself, it is not a covenant of God with man 
which is declared and perceived, but only a kind of divinely ordained 
concordat between the world and itself. Its result is merely the 
peace immanent to the world as such in and in spite of every con- 
tradiction and conflict. This is not everything. Indeed, it is not 
a great deal. It certainly cannot be regarded as identical with, or 
even a parable of, the peace of the kingdom of God. The world as 
such can produce no parables of the kingdom of heaven. Yet the fact 
remains that it is something. What would the world be, and we 
within the world, without it ? We must be grateful to the world, 
and as Christians to its Creator, for the fact that along with many 
other things it also has and maintains this immanent peace, and that 
it displays it as a created light of its created stability. 

A concept fundamental to all the lights which shine, the words 
which are spoken and the truths perceived in this whole process of 
making known and knowing is (i) the simple one of existence. What 
is meant is a specific existence for one another, namely, the existence 
of the cosmos which makes itself known for the cosmos which knows 
and vice versa, the existence of the subject which is also object for the 
object which is also subject and vice versa. This existence for one 
another is the basic form of what is lasting, persistent and constant 
in the creaturely world. In it, in this relation and therefore relativity, 
it is real in its own way, which is distinct from that of God but genuine 
within its limits. In it, it exists not once but continually as an intelli- 
gible and intelligent world. For it, it possesses, and in it fulfils, the 
time given it with its creation. There is no time in which it does not 
count, and cannot be counted upon, that it is present in this sense, 
in this encounter, in this making itself visible and audible and actually 
being seen and heard ; that in this sense which is limited but funda- 
mental to its being as the creaturely world, it is secure and secures 
itself. In this sense it has and is its own basis. This basis is certainly 
given it by God at its creation. It does not derive from itself. Yet it 
is its own basis which could be taken away only if God were to revoke 
His will and choice that it should be created and have this existence. 
So long as time endures, He has obviously not done this, and therefore 
we cannot doubt the power of its basis, or its reality. In any case, 
even the end of time would not necessarily mean that He has done 
this. What is quite certain is that existence belongs to the content 
of time, of every time, and therefore that, as we are human creatures 
in time, we may assume that existence in the form of the existence for 
one another of the intelligible and the intelligent is a reality which 
within its limits is impregnable, unalterable and indestructible. This 



144 69- The Glory of the Mediator 

is not everything. It is not even a great deal. But it would be ridi- 
culous to deny that it is something. For it is ultimately the pre- 
supposition of every breath we draw, every word we hear and speak, 
every step we make or refrain from making. The light in which this 
is declared and perceived is only a created light. But it is certainly a 
light. 

Again (2) it is also light, word and truth that this being for one 
another of the intelligible and the intelligent is not static but dynamic, 
yet dynamic in an orderly and not a disorderly way. In its fulfilment 
there is a definite rhythm which is steady even if it is also multiform. 
It involves constant repetition, the recurrence of the encounter, the 
continual resumption of converse. That there is this repetition, 
and therefore the persistent and constant endurance of the creaturely 
world, is revealed in the fact that the many forms in which the move- 
ment of creaturely existence is fulfilled are always the same and 
always give evidence of a basic form. There is always speech and 
hearing, question and answer. There is always beginning, cessation 
and new beginning. There is constant discovery, concealment and 
rediscovery. There is continual coming and going. There is no 
becoming without perishing, but no perishing without new becoming. 
That which belongs together is distinguished, but that which is dis- 
tinguished is brought together. The general divides off into the 
particular and the particular is subordinated to the general. The whole 
is only in the part, yet the part, too, is only in the whole. Essence 
is only in the form of existence, existence only in the form of essence. 
No swing of the pendulum does not evoke and is not actually followed 
by its opposite. No rest does not also contain and dissolve into unrest. 
But no unrest does not come from rest and hasten back to it. No 
over-emphasis is not immediately emulated and corrected. There was 
and is and always will be " seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, 
and summer and winter, and day and night " (Gen. 8 22 ), in the course 
of an unbroken and never-ceasing cycle. This rhythm of existence is 
as constant and sure as existence itself. For the concrete fulfilment 
of its motions terrestrial being in its mutual actuality needs and has 
its time, and with these motions it fills it up to the very brim, so that 
there is no time which is not ruled and determined by this rhythm. 
It is only the rhythm of terrestrial being. But it is the fulfilment in 
which, within its limits, it exists and is actual. It cannot and must 
not in any circumstances be confused or equated with the life of God 
as the Creator and Lord of terrestrial being, or His activity in and to 
the world. It is quite unthinkable that God Himself should be bound 
to this rhythm, as myth has always imagined, or that His life and 
activity should be compared with or measured by it. What moves in 
this rhythm is not God, but the intelligible and intelligent world. 
Yet this is the rhythm for the fulfilment of which God has ordained 
terrestrial being as its Creator. This is the character which He has 



2. The Light of Life 145 

given to the existence of the world. Hence this rhythm counts, and 
we may count upon it. The flux of the creaturely movement deter- 
mined by it always takes place, and within the limits of its creatureli- 
ness is always to be expected. Whatever this may imply, we can and 
should always reckon with it. Again it must be said that this is not 
everything, nor even a great deal. It is not an ultimate answer to 
ultimate questions. Yet it is something. It is a light, a created 
light, yet still a light ; and since its shining is the presupposition of 
all terrestrial being, and therefore of our own, it is fitting that we 
should be grateful for it. 

As a further constant of creaturely truth we may mention (3) the 
fact that the cosmos continually presents itself to man, if not to other 
elements, with a certain inner contrariety. It is difficult to describe 
even the rhythm of existence as such in neutral expressions. It has 
very definite accents, as appears in the first creation story with its 
significant contrasting of day and night, of the terrestrial and celestial 
oceans, of land and sea. We have here the encounter and alternation 
of Yes and No, beginning and end, joy and pain, construction and 
destruction, life and death. Hence the light of creation as such is a 
broken light. Existence in this constant movement constantly dis- 
closes itself in the twofold form of light and shadow. The accents 
which indicate this inner contrariety may sometimes be light and 
bearable, but sometimes so heavy as to be almost intolerable. But 
in its continual development and reunion, this accentuation is always 
found, the persistent rejoicing of creation being accompanied by its 
equally persistent distress and lamentation. The contrariety is intra- 
terrestnal and therefore relative. It has nothing whatever to do with 
the antithesis of Creator and creature, and certainly not of grace and 
sin or eternal salvation and eternal perdition. In the same way, the 
inner peace of creation which is always active and visible beyond the 
contrariety has nothing whatever to do with the event of reconcilia- 
tion. Here, too, it is a matter of the setting, not of the event itself. 
As the event takes place and is revealed, a different picture is naturally 
given to the setting, and the positive and negative accents acquire the 
specific character of indications of decisions which are ultimate and a 
contrariety which is absolute. But this character is not proper to 
them as such. In the first instance what they indicate, whether they 
be light or heavy, is simply the imperfection of the world which even 
as such belongs to its perfection as the creaturely world of God. The 
glory of existence withstands concretely its disparagement or its dis- 
solution in pure care. Yet equally the jeopardising of its glory with- 
stands any overestimation or establishment by final guarantees. It 
is in this twofold character that it discloses itself. This belongs as 
such to the totality of which it is said in Genesis I 31 that God created 
it and saw that it was good, and indeed very good. Both aspects 
count, and we may count on both : not as on an eternal Yes or an 



146 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

eternal No ; but as on a Yes and No with a validity which is constantly 
reaffimed and with which we have thus to reckon. 

Some attention must also be paid at this point (4) to what are 
usually described as natural and spiritual laws. It must be emphasised 
that this is only one aspect of existence among others. The truth of 
the cosmos is not by a long way exhausted in what is denoted by this 
concept. But there can be no doubt that it is also to be understood 
from the standpoint that in the coincidence and converse between 
objectively intelligible and subjectively intelligent being there is a 
disclosure and perception, a declaration and apprehension, of laws. 
These laws are not the basis of existence. But with greater or lesser 
force, clarity and certainty they constantly show themselves to be the 
forms of its nature. It is not to them that existence owes its distinc- 
tive rhythm and contrariety. They can only confirm the constancy 
of both in relation to the constancy of their forms. They do not 
indicate the reality or substance but only the manner of the existence 
of the created world and the fact that it gives itself to be known and 
is known. They do not indicate the whole or totality of cosmic exist- 
ence, but only a part, i.e., the existence of creaturely being in certain 
specific sections and circles. In relation to the manner of some part 
of existence, we speak of laws when in the encounter and converse 
between the intelligible and the intelligent cosmos there are disclosed 
and discovered and revealed and established certain processes, 
sequences, courses, connexions and relationships of known being and 
its knowledge in which constant repetitions of form and therefore 
rules may be and are discerned. It is a matter of rules which seem to 
preclude the assumption of accident or caprice in these processes and 
the rise and persistence of these sequences, so that in their validity 
they present themselves rather as orders or patterns. It is a matter 
of rules which apply to being as it may be and is known in a specific 
circle, and which therefore necessarily extend to its knowledge too. 
Conversely, it is a matter of rules which apply to the knowledge, and 
therefore seem to apply to the being which may be and is known in 
this circle. Laws are formulae for the relative necessity of certain 
objective and subjective processes and sequences. Such relative 
necessities have already been disclosed and discovered, or will be. 
They are thus a fact, and with them the formulae. They cannot claim 
to be more than relative necessities because they relate only to limited 
spheres of existence, because even in these spheres the reality and 
substance of existence are already presupposed and they can only 
describe its manner, and finally and supremely because it is only in 
the encounter and converse between intelligible and intelligent cosmos 
that they can be valid, and this validity is limited and conditioned 
by the greater or lesser imperfection of the disclosure and discovery 
and revelation and establishment which take place in this encounter. 
It is only partially, formally, and above all within the world and the 



2. The Light of Life 147 

equivocal nature of all its relationships, that they are valid formulae* 
And it is only as valid in this way that they can claim to be constant 
and continual words and truths. They tell us nothing concerning 
God the Creator and Lord, nor concerning man in his relationship to 
God. For the Word of God, the revelation of the truth of God and 
man, is not pronounced by them. Primary and ultimate questions 
are neither raised nor answered by them. But again, this does not 
mean that we can ignore or despise them in their relative validity. 
Not all human knowledge, but an important part of it, namely, the 
so-called exact sciences built on empirical observation and investiga- 
tion on the one side and mathematical logic on the other, are con- 
stituted in virtue of the knowability and in the knowledge of laws. 
And human technics in the narrower modern sense consists in the 
application of laws. We do not live only, but we do live also, by and 
with the fact that there are knowledge and technics in this sense, 
namely, that there are, as relatively tenable and usable working 
hypotheses, these formulae which have partial and formal validity 
within the world as descriptions of relative necessities, and which 
really count, and may be counted upon, when they are defined in this 
way. If not according to " eternal," then certainly according to 
" brazen " and in their way " great " laws we must " all fulfil the 
circles of our being." We must and should. For in them we clearly 
have to do, if not with the light of God Himself, at least with lights 
of the world created by Him. 

We leave out the most important feature, however, if we do not 
proceed at once to point out that the existence of the created world 
not only reveals occurrence which takes place in this rhythm and 
contrariety, and with an obvious measure of regularity, but that from 
a very different standpoint it is also (5) a summons and invitation to 
the active ordering and shaping of things, and therefore to a step into 
freedom. Man at least exists as this call comes to him and he accepts 
it. He does not accept only this call. Heard and accepted by him 
there is also the voice of existence as such, over the reality and sub- 
stance of which he has no power or control ; the voice of the rhythm of 
being which he cannot escape but which, whether with exultation or the 
deepest melancholy, he must accept willy-nilly ; the voice of the cosmic 
contrariety which he may approve or bewail but which is given and 
within which he must therefore live his life ; and the voice of natural 
and spiritual laws which he cannot set aside for all his awareness of 
their relativity, but can only recognise as valid and direct himself 
accordingly. But as the world gives itself to be known by him in all this 
objectivity, is he not claimed as one who knows, and therefore as an 
active subject ? Is he not made responsible for the cosmos which, 
as he knows it, cannot be remote or alien as though it were a fate, 
but is his cosmos and therefore a task set for his own life, not merely 
for his contemplation and apprehension, but for his choice and volition, 



148 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

his decisions and actions ? The encounter of the intelligible with the 
intelligent cosmos does not mean only that the former declares and 
makes perceptible to the latter its being, movement, order and forms. 
It means also that it awakens and stimulates it to a spontaneous 
work of ordering and fashioning corresponding to the particular way 
in which it, too, is the cosmos. As the intelligible cosmos exists wholly 
for the intelligent, it desires and demands that in its own way and 
work the latter should also exist for it. To put it dramatically, it 
yearns and cries out to be humanised. As it does this, and as it finds a 
hearing in accordance with the constant meaning and purpose of the 
encounter, the action of man as his step into freedom is also a constant 
element in the cosmos. However it may harmonise or not with the 
other constants already mentioned, and whatever may or may not be 
the result of human will and action, through all the being of the 
cosmos there runs the narrow but indelible and dynamically pregnant 
line on which, as the being of the intelligent cosmos and therefore as 
human being, it encounters itself, without separation or dissolution, 
as self-conscious will engaged in teleological interpretation, planning 
and creation. This is the line on which the creature acts even towards 
itself in affirmation and denial, in choice, separation and combination, 
in defence and attack, and generally in the establishment and execu- 
tion of human shape and order. On this line the creature is also free 
in the distinguishing, seizing and realising of its own hidden possi- 
bilities. This is also one of its truths. It declares this too. It shines 
on this side. This is not an illusion or exaggeration. We speak of 
the freedom of the creature which we know only as the freedom of 
man and as it is severely compromised as such by the other elements, 
as it is engaged in continual wrestling with them, with existence as 
such, its unchanging rhythm, its irremovable contrariety, the nexus 
of the knowable and known laws of the natural and spiritual world. 
It is freedom with this limit and commitment, so that it is not even 
remotely comparable, and cannot be equated, with the freedom of 
God the Creator and Lord and the freedom given by Him to man. 
Nevertheless, the world chosen, willed and created by God would not 
be what it is without this second work of the sixth day of creation, 
without man existing in the act of his life. The littleness and im- 
potence of man, the measure of his success or failure, the folly and 
wickedness revealed perhaps even more in his success than his failure, 
the feeble way in which he actually assumes responsibility for exist- 
ence all these do not alter in the slightest the fact that his freedom, 
too, counts as a cosmic element, and that we may count upon its 
recurrent offer and command, as we always do. We live as we act. 
Man would have to deny himself to deny the shining of this very 
particular light. He has good cause to be grateful for the shining of 
this light, even though it is not the eternal light. 

If the regularity and freedom of the cosmos might be called its 



2. The Light of Life 149 

height, the last factor in this series (6) is surely its depth. This is the 
unfathomable mystery in which it exists as a cosmos which is both 
intelligible and ordered yet also intelligent and ordering, as a creature 
which is bound by law yet also freely active, It never reveals itself 
without new and true concealment. That is to say, every form in 
which it makes itself known and is known is the form of a riddle. In 
its dialogue with itself there is no unification or result which is not a 
new question or a call for fresh unification. What can we really see 
and say with any true and final certainty, or in any other form than 
that of obscure outline and intimation, concerning its existence, 
rhythm and contrariety, concerning its regularity and freedom ? And 
if what emerges and imparts itself at all these points is something, if 
it is light, relative yet necessary and helpful light to be welcomed 
with gratitude, it must not be forgotten that in and with all these 
lights there is seen a very different one which might be called the 
light of the universal and unanswered question of the Wherefore both 
of individual features and the totality, the light of a Therefore which 
certainly seems to be immanent in the created world but which it 
declares only by keeping to itself, so that it does not really declare it 
except as its secret. We do not speak of the mystery of God, but of that 
immanent in the created world as such. We say too much if we even 
try to describe this as the mask of God, let alone if we call it His 
revelation. In itself it has nothing whatever to do with God's silence in 
His speech or speech in His silence, with the " deep things of God " 
(i Cor. 2 10 ). As the creature has its own existence, rhythm, con- 
trariety, regularity and freedom, so it has its own mystery. And in 
and with all its declarations, it always and everywhere declares also 
the mystery in which it is itself concealed. Basically, the point is 
that it is creature, but nothing more ; that it is grounded, but not in 
and of itself. But we see this as we listen to the Word of God, not 
as we listen to that spoken by the creature. If the creature itself 
never tells us that it is more or other than creature, no more does it 
tell us that it is creature and nothing more. To every question con- 
cerning its basis it merely opposes the mute fact of its existence, 
declaring its mystery in its silence at this point. In this very way, 
however, it confesses its truth. It would have to be more or other 
than creature to be able to see, affirm and express itself as such. It 
can merely confess the fact that it is creature by letting it speak for 
itself in its very being as such. Otherwise than by its existence, by 
keeping its secret and thus by declaring it as its secret, it could only 
deny and not confess its truth. But it does confess it in this way 
along every line and in and with all its declarations. Now since this 
secret is its own most proper secret, it is obvious that it is not infinite, 
absolute, unfathomable or eternal. In the Word spoken in disclosure 
of the divine mystery, there is also disclosed what the creature itself 
cannot disclose as its truth, namely, that it is creature, the creature 



150 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

of God, but no more ; that it is grounded, yet not in and by itself, 
but in and by God. It is hidden from itself in this respect. As crea- 
ture, it can speak here only as it is silent ; it can declare itself only 
in a mystery. The mystery which it declares as such is its limit. 
It has other ways of speaking besides silence. Its declaration con- 
sists in more than the declaration of this mystery or limit. As we 
have seen, it speaks in many other ways. Nor are we to say that 
at this point we suddenly come to a chasm which yawns at the very 
centre, or are confronted by an all-enveloping darkness. None of 
the other lights of the creaturely world is extinguished by the fact 
that in and with it the world always and everywhere declares its 
mystery. On the contrary, we must describe as light, and even as 
the great light of the creaturely world, this declaration of its mystery, 
this unmistakeability of the fact that it is simply there without giving 
any information concerning its basis, its Why or Wherefore. The 
declaration of this limit is also and particularly a highly important 
declaration of its truth. For as it always and everywhere makes 
known this limit, the hiddenness of its basis, it always and every- 
where makes known the sphere within which it has its existence and 
can be satisfied with it, the sphere within which it is hidden. To 
know that we can know nothing of ourselves, particularly in relation 
to the creatureliness of the creature, need cause us no searchings of 
heart, because this ignorance is the signal which the creature may 
and does continually give itself and in virtue of which it is prevented 
but also spared from looking beyond itself, from being charged with 
responsibility for its basis, from accepting as its own the concern for 
its existence. The truth made known in this signal of the limit of all 
creaturely being and light makes it quite impossible that we should 
overestimate the other creaturely lights or entertain any illusions as 
to their significance. This critical function which it exercises is helpful 
rather than the reverse. And its positive function is even more 
important. Warned and restrained by this limit or mystery from 
any illusions and the corresponding enterprises, the creature, whether 
instructed or not concerning itself and its creatureliness, can praise 
its creatureliness and therefore its Creator by simply enjoying and 
taking seriously its existence within the sphere allotted to it. The 
mystery of creation gives salutary peace to the extent that it is a 
direction to keep to what we know and can do within the limit set 
for us, but also salutary dispeace to the extent that it is obviously a 
direction within this limit to ask daily what more might be known or 
what might be done better. This depth of creaturely existence is 
surely fruitful. Among the creaturely lights, none of which is to 
be equated with the light of God, it is surely a great and supreme 
light. It is surely a truth which always counts, and can always 
be counted upon, so that we have good cause to be grateful for its 
shining. 



2. The Light of Life 151 

We have now developed in its basic meaning, and in some of its 
more important details, the other statement from which we have to 
mark off our main thesis that Jesus Christ is the light of life. It 
speaks of the theatrum gloriae Dei, and therefore of the creaturely 
world as the setting or background, the sphere or location, of the 
event and revelation of reconciliation as the triumph of His glory. 
It draws attention to the lights or words or truths which also and 
already shine in God's creation as such, to the indications of the 
constant factors in cosmic being and occurrence as chosen, willed, 
established and overruled by God. 

In marking off our main thesis from this other statement, we must 
also point out its relationship to it. That we cannot be content with 
a mere assertion of the difference between them, which might well 
lead to the unfortunate doctrine of two kingdoms, is suggested already 
by the fact that, while in the one statement we have to do with the 
one light and Word of the one truth of God, in that which we have 
just explained we are not just dealing with the many lights and words 
and truths of the world, but with those of the world created by God. 
It is thus impossible to allow a simple antithesis to be our one and 
final word. The more clearly we see the antithesis, the more con- 
fused and meaningless and unsatisfactory we shall see this to be. 
The question thus arises how that can be truth which as the truth of 
God is different from and even opposed to the truth of His works. 
Do we not have to accept the antithesis ? But then what becomes of 
the unity of God and His work if the relationship between the gloria 
Dei and its theatrum, between reconciliation and creation, is only one 
of estrangement which may well be actual hostility ? To be sure, 
we have to make a clear and sharp distinction at this point, since the 
content and function as well as the origin of the one truth are so very 
different from those of the other if they are taken in isolation. The 
.existence of the cosmos as the existence for one another of the intelli- 
gible and the intelligent has in itself nothing whatever to do with that 
of the existence of God as the Founder and Lord of His covenant with 
man. Similarly, its rhythm has in itself nothing whatever to do with 
the life and activity of God, nor its inner contrariety with the contra- 
diction between the holiness of God and the sin of man, between His 
goodness and man's fall, misery and perdition. Again, the eternal 
will and decree of God has in itself nothing whatever to do with the 
laws knowable and known in the cosmos, nor His freedom with the 
freedom of the intelligent creature, nor finally His mystery with that 
proper to the creature. But the fact remains that these distinctions 
become sharp and clear only when they are made with the calm of the 
common consideration which is demanded and permitted by the fact 
that the self-declaration of God in Jesus Christ does not take place 
in a dark and empty and indefinite sphere, but in one which has real 
existence, fulness, form and brightness thanks to the will and work 



152 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of the same God. Hence, the critical distinction which has to be 
made in the relationship between the self-declaration of God in the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ and the self-attestations of the creature 
cannot possibly result in the exclusion of the latter, seeing they 
derive their force from the same God The critical distinction itself 
entails the search and questing for a positive understanding of the 
self-attestations of the creature too. It is revealed in the thoughtful 
inclusion rather than exclusion of what is marked off from the self- 
declaration of God. Our understanding of the connexion between 
the one light of God and the many lights of His creation will necessarily 
be a comprehensive one. 

But the terms " common consideration," " inclusion " and " com- 
prehensive understanding " require clarification. Can we really 
speak in this way ? God and the world created by Him do not exist 
in the same manner. They are not two elements related on one and 
same level. They co-exist in such a way that in free grace God gives 
it to the world that it should be what it is as such in the way it is, 
deriving its own being and existence only from this gift. The same is 
true of the relationship between the one light of the self-declaration 
of God and the many lights which declare the being, existence and 
nature of the world created by Him. They cannot be compared or 
considered together as though for all their difference they were only 
two rays from one and the same light, or two sides, aspects or parts 
of one and the same truth. This would imply an original truth 
superior both to the truth of the world and to that of God. The 
truth of God would then be, like that of the world, a mere manifesta- 
tion of this original, superior and proper truth. We should be dealing 
with two words, and in origin with two forms, of a true and unknown 
kingdom which presents itself on the right hand as God and on the 
left as the world, and must itself really be both if it is to do this in 
truth. If we reject such Gnosticism, building on and keeping to the 
fact that God is the Creator and the world His creation, this very 
different co-ordination of the being and existence of both forces us to 
a very different common consideration of the light of God and the 
lights which shine in the world. In God's self-declaration in Jesus 
Christ we do not have a mere irruption of some higher, original and 
true light, and therefore a mere expression of truth, but the one true 
light of the one truth above or alongside which there can be no other, 
rival truth. Are there truths outside this one ? Yes, for the creature 
has its being and existence outside God. But as lights of the creature 
these truths are irruptions in this connexion there is a real place for 
the term of the one light and expressions this term is also justified 
at this point of the one truth. If they have force, value and validity, 
these are not independent. Primarily and finally, they are not their 
own. They are merely those which are lent them by the shining of 
the one light of the one truth. These are lights and truths of the 



2. The Light of Life 153 

theatrum of the gloria Dei. The meaning of the being and existence 
of the world created by God is to be the fitting sphere and setting of 
the great acts in which God expresses and declares Himself, i.e., His 
overflowing love for man, establishing, maintaining, executing and 
fulfilling His covenant with Him. The revealing of this action, and 
therefore the prophecy of Jesus Christ, is the one truth and the one 
light. But as this light rises and shines, it is reflected in the being 
and existence of the cosmos which is not created accidentally, but 
with a view to this action and therefore to this revelation. As it 
shines in the cosmos, it kindles the lights with which the latter is 
furnished, giving them the power to shine in its own service. The 
latter cannot do more than become bright in this light. They cannot 
replace the one light and truth of the divine self-declaration. As 
self-attestations of creation they do not speak of the great acts of the 
love of God, nor of His covenant of grace. Their shining, their declara- 
tion of truth, is strictly confined to the service which they may render 
as God declares Himself. But they have a service for which they are 
ordained, claimed and empowered by the one truth. This is the 
service of the self-witness of the world that in its existence and nature it 
is a real world, which is sustained and upheld, which has a basis of 
constancy as the sphere of the occurrence and revelation of the grace 
of God in Jesus Christ, and which as such may have continuing essence 
and existence. What is reflected in them as they perform this service 
is the fact that the Creator is faithful to His creature with the eternal 
faithfulness which is active and powerful and revealed in His act and 
revelation of grace in Jesus Christ, and which He has sworn to it 
with its very creation. The measure of their force, value and validity 
is the measure to which they are taken into the service of the self- 
attestation of God as self -attestations of the creature, and the measure 
to which they prove to be usable in this service : no more and no 
Jess. A true consideration of the gloria Dei in conjunction with its 
theatrum, and with the lights of this theatrum, will thus necessarily 
consist in a contemplation of the history in which the one truth of God 
illuminating the sphere of the creaturely world subjects the many 
lights of this world which it uses to its critical yet also positive, and 
positive yet also critical, decision. 

Avoiding both dualistic error on the one side and monistic on the 
other, we have to see and understand both the way in which the 
truth of God challenges and relativises the truth of the creature and 
yet also the way in which it institutes and integrates this truth. The 
acting Subject which challenges and relativises on the one side yet 
institutes and integrates on the other is God Himself in His self- 
attestation, the eternal light dawning and giving a new radiance to 
the world. It is in and from our consideration of the shining of this 
light that we come to see what we are looking for, namely, its critical 
and positive relationship to the lights of creation, and therefore the 



154 ^9- The Glory of the Mediator 

nature and function proper to these lights as such. We shall now try 
to consider in three ways the history and therefore the action of the 
truth of God in relation to the truths of the created world. Against 
the background of what we have said at the beginning and in the 
middle of this sub-section concerning the prophecy of Jesus Christ, 
we assume that this prophecy, and therefore the truth of God, is dis- 
tinguished (i) by the fact that it is completely binding, (2) by its 
unity and totality, and (3) by its irrevocable finality. It is with this 
character that it illumines creation and the lights of creation. Our 
present question concerns its effects upon these lights as it shines 
with this character. What are the necessary results for them ? 

(i) As the Word of God gives itself to be heard by man, it binds 
itself to the man who hears it in a way which is not just incidental, 
external or partial, but essential, internal and absolute. In a way 
which is equally essential, internal and absolute, it binds the man to 
itself, or, as we might prefer to put it, in giving itself to be heard, it 
gives essential, internal and absolute freedom to the man who hears 
it. This is what is effected when it is spoken as the Word of Jesus 
Christ, the kingdom and the covenant of grace through the word of 
the prophets and apostles, the ministering word of the community, 
or the word of an extraordinary witness. As God's own Word, it 
applies to the man himself. He is the one intended and reached by 
it from all eternity. It takes possession of him and sets him on a 
new ground and in a new atmosphere and situation. In virtue of its 
address he is a new man, a man of God, justified, sanctified and called 
as such. It does not merely enlighten him concerning himself in 
various relationships. It does this. But it does it only as first and 
decisively it illumines his heart, namely, himself. Hence he does not 
need to fear that there is a place where it will not shine with its good 
news. Nor is there any place to which he might flee to escape the 
illumination of its law and command. As a bad hearer of the Word 
of God he might give way to fear or flight of this kind, and therefore 
sin. But this does not alter the fact that it surrounds him as a hearer 
on all sides. The witness of Scripture serves it. It gathers, orders 
and edifies the community. It sends it as its messenger into the 
world and among the nations. It sends it into the world because, as 
this binding Word, it is not spoken only to individuals or the com- 
munity but to the world, in its incarnation binding itself to the world 
and the world to itself, achieving and granting its freedom and thus 
making it, whether it realises the fact or not, a new and different 
world. Thus everything which is to be said concerning its binding 
quality may be said virtually and potentially of all men. For in 
virtue of the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ and His revelation 
in His resurrection from the dead, in virtue of the justification and 
sanctification achieved in Him, in virtue of the call which has been 
and is made in Him, every man in His humiliated and exalted and 



2. The Light of Life 155 

living person is virtually and potentially a hearer of the Word of God, 
and therefore claimed, not merely for investigation or experiment, 
but in a way which is absolutely binding. He has not yet heard it ? 
He refuses to do so ? He thinks he cannot do so ? Yet the fact 
remains that he is in the sphere of its sound and voice. Jesus Christ 
would not be risen if he were not. It is just because he has not yet 
heard, or refuses to do so, or ostensibly cannot, that he is to be claimed 
as one who is a virtual and potential, and can and should be its actual, 
hearer. This is the world to whose existence and nature it also belongs 
that the prophecy of Jesus Christ has taken place within it and 
towards it. It is for this reason that it is to be addressed, and indeed 
addressed with a call to absolute and binding commitment. 

As it is confronted by this binding Word of God, it is obvious that 
what the creature regards as its own truth is challenged and relativised. 
In their own way, creaturely words and truths are also binding for 
man. But they do not bind him essentially, internally or absolutely. 
Nor do they give him freedom as they bind him. They do not strike 
him from the eternity of God, but merely as self-attestations of His 
creation, as part of its dialogue with itself. Nor do they strike him 
personally, as directed to him, but only with a universal application 
and in relation to qualities which he shares with all men of every time 
and place. They enlighten him concerning himself, i.e., his possibili- 
ties, situation and environment. But they do not illumine his heart 
and therefore himself. Thus even as he receives them he can and 
will be elsewhere than in the sphere illumined by them. He possesses 
them, but they do not possess him. He is not surrounded by them 
on every side. They tell him nothing of justification and sanctifica- 
tion. They tell him nothing of what he really can and should do. 
They bring him no shattering news of promise and place him under 
no shattering word of command. Not really applying to his inner- 
most being, they leave him to his own devices. They tell him nothing 
new, but merely recall what he already knows and might easily tell 
himself. In the last resort therefore, for all the gratitude which he 
cannot withhold from them, they leave him unmoved. He lives with 
them, but he might equally well live without them. For he does not 
live by them : neither by the rhythm of the creaturely world, how- 
ever powerful ; nor by the revelations of its regularity and freedom ; 
and certainly not by the declaration of its immanent mystery. Of 
what avail is it to man to know these things ? He has certainly to 
take note of them. But to what extent do they bind him so that he 
himself is reached and determined and altered ? In themselves they 
are only forms with no content, conditions with no fulfilment, pre- 
suppositions from and within which good and evil, salvation and per- 
dition, life and death, are equally possible, but no decisions are to be 
expected in these antitheses. The Word of God shows them to be 
radical and mutually exclusive antitheses. It makes and calls for 



156 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

decisions. And in so doing, it is a binding Word. Even the brightest 
of creaturely truths do not do this. In relation to these antitheses 
they are neutral. They speak only of the constants of existence how- 
ever it is lived and experienced. Without beginning, end, or time, 
they are mere hedges on the road which means for man good or evil, 
salvation or perdition, life or death. They are silent where they 
should really be pertinent. They carry neither real threat nor real 
promise. For they speak neither of real judgment and loss nor of 
real grace and salvation. It is only in relation, i.e., relatively to what 
might be seriously called real questions and answers, possibilities and 
realities, that they shine as truths. But this relation is not immanent 
in them. In themselves and such, unless they are set in this relation, 
they are merely bodies or forces of light, i.e., lights which are not yet 
kindled, or have been extinguished, and do not therefore burn and 
shine. In themselves and as such they certainly point but only into 
the void and the unknown. It is for this reason that they cannot 
finally bind as does the Word of God. And this is at least an aspect 
of the way in which they are called in question when confronted and 
compared with this Word. 

Yet we have also to speak of their institution and integration. 
For what they lack may be acquired by them as the absolutely binding 
Word of God, the Word of Jesus Christ and the Word of the covenant 
of grace, is spoken among them, and they are thus confronted with 
and set alongside this one true light. It must be remembered that 
we are not referring to another message given by the creaturely world, 
but to the one declaration of its Creator and Lord, who as such has 
intervened in His own person to save and keep it, to give it peace in 
peace with Himself, Himself becoming a creature, man, and in this 
solidarity with it acting for and towards it. It is not an alien who 
now begins to speak His absolutely binding Word within it, so that 
He and the world with its self-attestations are not to be thought of 
as at cross-purposes. And it is certainly not an enemy whose word 
contradicts its own and may rightly be contradicted by it. On the 
contrary, the One who now, as its Creator who is also its Reconciler, 
begins to speak His Word, is One to whom as such its own words and 
lights can be neither indifferent nor obnoxious, but who wills only 
that His absolutely binding Word should go forth and be heard. This 
being the case, it is only natural that its own words, however they 
may run as its self-attestations, should be taken up and used in the 
service of His Word, and given a part in its work. The positive thing 
which takes place in the confrontation of the little lights of creation 
with the great light of its Creator is that they are not passed over or 
ignored, let alone destroyed or extinguished, but integrated in the 
great light. They are not incapable of this integration. How could 
they be ? They are created by Him, and were certainly not created 
accidentally or without purpose. They are even binding to a limited 



2. The Light of Life 157 

yet unmistakeable degree. They tell of orders in which the life of 
man and all other creatures is lived, of limits which are set for him 
and directions given. We have seen that these are not absolute 
orders, limits or directions. Their force, value and validity are only 
in terms of this world. They have as their object only the presupposi- 
tions, conditions and forms of human thought and action, not the 
thought and action themselves, not their orientation and content, 
and not therefore man. Yet they are still orders, limits and directions, 
and to the extent that these are declared the words of creation are 
also binding. For good or evil, man must keep to the sphere allotted 
by them. And the integration, the conscription to service, which 
comes to the self-witness of the creature in its encounter with the 
self-witness of God, consists in the fact that it is taken up by the latter, 
and that its limited power to bind can be invested with the absolute 
power of the Word of God, or conversely that the absolute power of 
the Word of God can invest itself with the limited power of creaturely 
self -witness. The eternal Word of God, which concerns and affects 
man himself, which radically changes and renews the world, which 
decides and demands decision, which is the Word of the kingdom and 
of the covenant of grace, can change its form and find expression in 
the apparently claimless form of this or that self-witness of the creature 
which in itself speaks only of various orders, limits and directions, of 
various presuppositions, conditions and forms of human thought and 
action. It can conceal its divine force, value and validity in the 
relative force, value and validity of such creaturely self-witness, and 
yet in this very concealment be God's self-declaration and as such 
absolutely binding. In the course of this action of the Word of God 
the eternal light can shine, the Word of the covenant of grace be 
spoken and the saving truth of God be uttered in the lights, words 
and truths of creation. The latter can thus be integrated by the 
Word of God and achieve what they could not be or do of themselves, 
but can be and do as the Lord of creation wills it. They are instituted 
into His direct service and set in a relation in which they do not 
stand of themselves. They can thus be truths which shine as expres- 
sions of the one truth. All the declarations of the cosmos, from that 
of its existence as such to that of its mystery, can in this sense acquire 
absolutely binding force in the change of form which takes place with 
the self-declaration of God. This is the positive note on which to end 
our first consideration. 

(2) We begin the second by asserting the full and undivided and 
indivisible unity of the Word of God, and its totality which neither 
needs nor is capable of any addition or emulation. When we hear 
it as it gives itself to be heard, or see its light as it gives itself to be 
seen, we no longer need to crane our heads in an attempt to catch 
other sights or sounds in other directions. We must not and indeed 
we cannot do this any longer. The voice of Jesus Christ does not 



158 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

scatter but gathers man and men. The whole wealth of the omni- 
potence of the divine mercy is the one necessary thing in His Word 
beyond which or in addition to which we need nothing more, and 
cannot fittingly ask for more. It is one as God is One in the infinite 
fulness of His divine life, yet also as man is one in the appropriate 
finite plenitude of his possibility. It is one as Jesus Christ Himself is 
One as the Mediator between God and man. It is in this unity and 
totality that the Word of God is spoken and also received when it is 
heard as such. Holy Scripture does not say many things ; for all the 
many forms of its witness it finally says only the one thing which as 
such is also the totality. Built upon the witness of the prophets and 
apostles, and serving the Word of God, the community in all its 
legitimate and more particularly its illegitimate variety of form can 
live only by the one thing, and try to declare to the world only the 
one thing, which is also the totality. In every time and place it is 
sancta only as it is una and catholica. So, too, these extraordinary 
witnesses of revelation must show their genuineness by saying one 
thing and not many. For the Holy Ghost, in all the multiplicity of 
His gifts and powers, is One the totality outside and alongside 
which there are no other holy gifts and powers. It is the content of 
the Word of God which gives it its exclusiveness : the one Lord over 
all ; His all-embracing kingdom ; the one and total justification and 
sanctification of man. Necessarily the Word which has this content 
is a Word which cuts, distinguishes and decides with a final sharpness. 
Necessarily Jesus Christ as this Word of God is also the One who 
" shall come to judge the quick and the dead." 

Again, it is obvious that everything which creation can say of 
itself is relativised and called in question by this Word of God. It is 
not for nothing that we can speak only in the plural of lights, words 
and truths. The voices uttered and heard in creation are many, and 
none of them speaks in such a way that its message can be recognised 
in what is said by others. Our only option in this sphere is constantly 
to listen and look in every direction, so that if we hear the voice of 
constants, they are different cosmic constants which seem to contra- 
dict one another, as in the case of the regularity of the cosmos on the 
one hand and the freedom which obtains within it on the other. It 
continually seems as though one or other of the different lights is 
pointing to one constant as that which determines and controls the 
whole. But which of them can really fulfil this role ? Even the 
questions which they raise and the riddles which they put cannot be 
reduced to a single form, let alone the answers and solutions which 
they propound. Attempts are continually made to bring them to a 
common denominator which can then be proclaimed as the world 
logos, whether it is matter, spirit, energy, act or existence. If only we 
could recognise this to some degree at least in a significant series of 
the attempts to establish it ! But even in the series, let alone in the 



2. The Light of Life 159 

individual factors and elements proclaimed as the one and all in the 
various attempts, it has not given itself to be known in such sort that 
these statements are not able and even forced in constant interaction 
to dissolve and mutually suppress one another. It is obvious, of course, 
that there are world logoi, but it is equally obvious that there is no 
world logos, i.e., no word in which creation expresses itself in its unity 
and totality. From this angle, the problem of all creaturely truths is 
that there are so many of them, that they make themselves known 
only as partial truths, that none of them is the one whole truth. If 
we do not know the one whole truth, the light of life, we cannot 
concede that we have discovered it in one of these lights, or that we 
expect the day to come when it will be seen as the one great light in 
all of them. We can only resist such a view. To those who perceive 
it, the shining of the one whole truth, the light of life, which is the 
Word of God, Jesus Christ, always proves itself to be the standard 
by which the relativity of all creaturely lights is unequivocally 
manifested. 

Yet where the relativising Subject is God Himself in His self- 
declaration rather than a relativising principle, in this respect, too, 
relativisation means institution and integration. What is lacking to 
the self-attestations of the creature as such, in this respect, too, they 
can acquire as and when God Himself begins to speak and claims and 
uses them in His service. They are not in themselves witnesses of 
His one and total Word which is spoken in the resurrection of Jesus 
Christ from the dead and which reveals His reconciling action. But 
as they are taken up into association by Him, they can attach them- 
selves to His Word, and in all their multiplicity and ambiguity, both 
alone and with greater or lesser completeness together, they can 
acquire and assume its distinctive orientation and to that extent its 
character of unity and totality. If not alone, nor in any conjunction 
or synthesis of their own, yet in connexion with the action of the one 
Word of God, they can point beyond their disparate statements to a 
unity and totality of creation, and to that extent speak of that which 
will not differ from the unity and totality declared in the Word of 
God. They can blend their voices with that of God. He could hardly 
be the God who has lent them these voices if they could not do this 
as commanded and empowered by Him. What they say can so 
harmonise with what He Himself says that to hear Him is to hear 
them, and to hear them to hear Him, so that listening to the polyphony 
of creation as the external basis of the covenant, to its questions and 
answers, its riddles and solutions, is listening to the symphony for 
which it was elected and determined from eternity and which the 
Creator alone has the power to evoke, yet according to His Word the 
will also. Nor has He only the will. For when He speaks His one 
and total Word concerning the covenant which is the internal basis 
of creation, this symphony is in fact evoked, and even the self-witness 



160 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of creation in all the diversity of its voices can and will give its unani- 
mous applause. 

(3) In a third consideration which will gather up the threads we 
shall again begin by thinking of the character in which the Word of 
God gives itself to be received in the event of the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ within creaturely existence and its lights and words and truths. 
Under our previous heads we have thought first of its binding force 
and then of its unity and totality. We must now think of its finality. 
Finality means that it has a validity which cannot be qualified or 
conditioned by any end or limit, which cannot be contested, questioned 
or transcended, which constitutes a threat to every other validity. 
The Word of God is final in this strict sense. It is the eternal light. 
It always shines now. There never was nor will be a time when it 
does not shine. It shines as the light which makes all other lights 
what they are, and without which they would have no power to shine, 
and would not actually do so. In it there is no darkness. Indeed, 
outside it there is no darkness to which it is not superior in its shining, 
which it cannot penetrate and illumine with its shining. It is an 
irrevocable Word. There is no fault in it, nor does it contradict 
itself. It cannot be recalled and replaced by any other Word of God. 
In face of it all contradiction is ill-grounded, impotent and untenable, 
and therefore condemned to be silenced and removed. It is the 
prototype of Word the Word which makes all others possible as 
such, from which they derive and to which they return, to which they 
approximate, which they would like to emulate but cannot, alongside 
which they cannot therefore range themselves. It is the declaration 
both of first and original and last and final truth. It is the truth itself 
and as such. It cannot then be subjected to any criterion of truth 
different from itself. It is itself the criterion of all different truths. 
Declared by God, it authenticates itself. If any other truth authenti- 
cates itself, it does so in the power of this self-authenticating truth. 
It is with a final Word in this sense that we have to do in the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ. It is in this character that it is the light of life. It 
is this as and because the life of which it is the light is first and last, 
eternally and indestructibly, life in itself. Behind and above its life, 
i.e., behind and above the election made in it from all eternity and 
fulfilled and revealed by it in time, behind and above God's covenant 
of grace with man established and sealed by it, behind and above the 
justification and sanctification of the sinner accomplished in its life 
and death, there is no one and nothing save the free God Himself. 
And the free God is personally present and active in the being and 
activity of Jesus Christ. His life is not actually lived behind or above 
the reconciling life of Jesus Christ. In virtue of the resolve of His 
omnipotent mercy, and in its actualisation, His life is this reconciling 
life. Its declaration, revelation and prophecy are thus the light and 
Word and truth of the free God Himself. It is not at all the case that 



2. The Light of Life 161 

they are perhaps finally called in question by another declaration, 
revelation and prophecy of a free God existing somewhere behind or 
above them. On the contrary, it is the free God Himself who gives 
to the declaration, revelation and prophecy of Jesus Christ this char- 
acter of finality, or rather, who is present in them with the finality of 
His own light and Word and truth. It is with this finality that His 
Word goes forth in Jesus Christ and is received as it causes itself to 
be heard, and is heard. For those who receive a final word this 
final Word " finally " means absolutely true and trustworthy. It 
means that he can and should hold to it in all circumstances as a 
Word spoken with once-for-all validity. It means that he need have 
no fear that at some point or in some respect it will not authenticate 
itself. It means that he cannot hope to escape what is said to him in 
it. It does not compel or even permit him to test its foundations by 
other considerations. It is the Word which does not entangle in dis- 
putation those who receive it, but takes them out of the sphere of 
disputation, sparing them the anxiety and futility of proving what is 
said in it. In relation to it any serious or less serious intellectual, 
moral, aesthetic or emotional questionings, doubts, suspicions or 
objections which may arise can have their basis only in the recipient 
and not in the Word itself. Either individually or as a whole, its 
promises and threats and admonitions, its offers and commands, its 
disclosures, are all perfect in themselves and therefore perfectly 
reliable. The Word of God cannot be the object of genuine question- 
ing. On the contrary, it is the Subject which puts the only genuine 
question which can arise in this respect, namely, whether and to what 
extent its reception by those to whom it comes is true reception, a 
reception which corresponds to its declarations, and therefore the 
only reception which can be seriously called reasonable. In true and 
reasonable reception of the Word of God, those who receive it achieve 
an absolute confidence grounded in its own finality, in its eternity as 
light, its irrevocability as Word, its original and definitive character 
as truth. Without taking up the points in detail, we may add that it 
is in the light of this finality that we have to understand that which 
in our previous deliberations we have called its binding force and its 
unity and totality. It is in its eternity and irrevocability, in its 
original and definitive character, that it has the power to bind and 
loose men, and is enabled to say the one thing which is also the totality. 
First and last in its finality it is what all delineations of its character 
can only describe, namely, the Word of God. 

When it manifests itself in this character, and particularly in this 
finality, this implies and effects the challenging and relativising of all 
created lights and words and truths. Whether and to what extent 
the validity of these is doubtful or relative may seem to be contestable 
so long as we are not aware that both individually and collectively 
they are all confronted by the final Word of God, and exposed to the 
C.D. iv.-m.-i. 6 



162 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

work of His revelation. If we think we can know these lights abstractly 
and not in their confrontation by the Word of God, we are forced on 
to the way which leads from radical scepticism to radical dogmatism 
or vice versa, and on which the dubiety and relativity of all creaturely 
disclosures and perceptions are concealed. But if they are knowable 
and known in this encounter and confrontation, they are unequivocally 
known in their lack of finality. What can they make known ? Some- 
thing to be sure ! To a radical scepticism we must reply, with reference 
to this confrontation, that they do in fact make known in their own 
way the existence of creation as willed and posited by God. Yet to a 
radical dogmatism we must also reply, with reference to the same 
confrontation, that they do not make anything known definitively in 
eternal light, in an irrevocable way, or in first and final truth. Creation 
can never declare itself as God does. Otherwise it would not be 
creation. It does declare itself, but in correspondence with its limited, 
conditioned and finite being, existence and nature, i.e., with a limited, 
conditioned and finite declaration. This is true, as we have seen, 
even in relation to its mystery. It does not know itself as God knows 
Himself and it, but only in the limits within which it may know itself 
in its continuing dialogue with itself, and which carry with them the 
constant threat of error. Only in radical self-deception can it ascribe 
finality to what it actually declares on the basis of its own knowledge 
concerning the constants of its being, existence and nature. The 
same is true of the necessity and freedom with which it should keep 
to what is imparted in this way. They can be only a conditioned 
necessity and freedom. We can and should count on its disclosures, 
but only in a limited way. There can be no question of an absolute 
trustworthiness of the disclosures of creation even in relation to itself. 
Even when what is said shines and illumines us with general validity, 
we are not to expect a first and final declaration from it. General 
validity is not necessarily the same as final validity. We must not 
forget that it is man by whom the disclosures of creation may be 
known, and who for his part knows them. When we speak of general 
validity, we refer to the agreements and common statements of many 
or all men. The certainty of these disclosures thus stands or falls with 
the self-certainty of man, and confidence in their validity with his 
self-confidence. Centrally, therefore, it is the self-confidence of man, 
of all men, which, if it is not negated or destroyed or even shattered 
by the Word of God spoken to him, is certainly called in question and 
relativised, being set in its limits and as it were bracketed, so that in 
these brackets, but only here, it may have its own place and sphere 
of action within the continuing self-converse of creation in which it is 
proper to the creaturely nature and determination of man to be both 
receptive and productive. This means, however, that, if this dialogue 
leads to results, and therefore to lights, words and truths as the 
emergence of certain knowable and known constants of intelligible 



2. The Light of Life 163 

and intelligent cosmic being, these can and should, as hypotheses, 
provide foundations and materials for the continuation of the dialogue, 
but, in sharp contrast to the definitive Word of God, they cannot 
claim final validity, since the end of the dialogue is not yet in sight, 
it must proceed further from the point now reached, and the goal can 
be reached, if at all, only with the end of the whole of the present 
form of the cosmos and its self -witness. Obviously, they are pro- 
visional assumptions to which man is invited and constrained but 
which he is summoned to transcend, deepen, amplify or correct by 
similar assumptions. None of the agreements or common statements 
reached in this dialogue, whether speculative, logico-empirical, moral, 
aesthetic, scientific or mythological, can pretend to be a final and 
authentic declaration concerning existence. They are not to be 
underestimated. As lights, words and truths of problematical and 
relative validity, they have great practical value, force and signifi- 
cance in the time and situation in which they are knowable and 
known with greater or lesser clarity. They can be counted upon 
within the limitation which marks their witness and that which it 
attests. But they all lack final validity. We can and should and 
must live with them in this sense, but we certainly cannot live by 
them. Is this so, or is it not ? Even more clearly, it may be stated 
that where they are considered abstractly, and not in confrontation 
with the Word of God, doubt is thrown on their own dubiety and 
their relativity itself appears to be relative. In these circumstances 
the discussion between those who view them sceptically and those 
who view them dogmatically can and must proceed. This discussion 
is brought to an end, and the dubiety and relativity of these creaturely 
lights and words and truths are unequivocally seen, only when they 
are seen and understood in the context in which they stand, i.e., 
only when it is seen and understood that the self-attestations of 
creation are challenged and relativised by the final self-declaration 
of God. 

But this critical consideration is possible only if it is accompanied 
by some awareness at least of what is to be seen and understood of 
their institution and integration in this respect, too, by the final self- 
declaration of God. To relativise means critically to set something 
in its limited and conditioned place. But it also means positively to 
set it in the relationship indicated by the limits of this place. When 
and where God causes His own final Word to go forth within the 
cosmos and its lights and words and truths, the latter are set in their 
place but also in the appropriate relationship, i.e., in what we have 
called their context. Their context, however, is creation as the external 
basis of the covenant which is itself the internal basis of creation. It 
is the setting of the glory, i.e., of the omnipotent love of God. In 
their own place and way, with the provisional, problematic and relative 
character commensurate with the nature of their theme, these lights 



164 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

speak and tell of creation, and laud and praise it as the work of God. 
But supposing that that happens for which creation has the being and 
existence attested by its own lights and words and truths. Supposing 
that Jesus Christ is born and lives and dies and is raised from the 
dead within it, so that " the sun of righteousness " arises, the eternal 
light, the irrevocable Word, the definitive truth of the election and 
the covenant and therefore of the glory and love of God ? To be sure, 
their provisional nature is then disclosed and they are divested of any 
claim to absoluteness. But they are also invested with the glorious 
finality of God and His action towards man as this is now revealed. 
They still shine and speak and bear witness concerning creation. But 
they no longer do this abstractly. They do it concretely, in the 
context of and in harmony with that which God Himself says con- 
cerning His action towards man, concerning what He is and does for 
man, and what man may be and do for Him. And as the being and 
existence of creation itself are glorified rather than destroyed by the 
events of which it is ordained to be the theatre, so its words and 
truths, far from being contradicted or given the lie, acquire in this 
context and in harmony with God's definitive Word a similar final 
force and value and significance. For now the self-witness of creation 
can also speak and tell of what God says, and therefore speak as from 
God Himself, praising and glorifying Him : " The heavens declare 
the glory of God; the firmament sheweth his handywork " (Ps. ig 1 ). 
To be sure, " there is no speech nor language," i.e., they have no 
power to do it of themselves. But they acquire this power. The 
final and trustworthy thing which they cannot say of themselves con- 
cerning their being and existence, they now say as they reflect the 
eternal light of God, as they answer His word and as they correspond 
to His truth. In other words, they speak of the meaning and deter- 
mination of the creaturely world for what God is and does for man 
and what he may be and do for God. In the mirror of this final self- 
declaration of theirs we have a reflection of the final self-declaration 
of their Creator in His great act of peace. In this sense they are taken, 
lifted, assumed and integrated into the action of God's self-giving and 
self-declaring to man and therefore to the world made by Him. And 
in the power of this integration they are instituted, installed and 
ordained to the ministerium Verbi Divini. Nor are they unworthy of 
this ministry, for by the Verbum Dtvinum itself they are made worthy. 
Nor are they incapable of it, for by the same Word they are made 
capable. Nor are they unwilling to accept, for by this Word a new 
will is awakened within them, namely, the will to do it. In their dis- 
charge and execution of this ministry " their sound is gone out through 
all the earth, and their words to the end of the world " (Ps. 19*) ; 
and the words and the sound are final and definitive. 

This, then, as we have tried to indicate it under our three headings, 
is the critical but also, since it is genuinely critical, the positive relation- 



3- Jesus is Victor 165 

ship of the light of life to the lights which the God whose saving 
action is revealed by the one light does not withhold from His creatures 
as such but gives them in His eternal goodness. 



3. JESUS IS VICTOR 

The statement which has so far occupied us is the simple equation 
of life as such with light. In other words, the covenant of God with 
man and man with God as fulfilled in Jesus Christ is not a dumb fact 
but one which speaks for itself. The reconciliation of the world with 
God accomplished and consisting in Him is revelation in its very 
reality. To use the terminology of the older dogmatics, as the High- 
priest and King, as the humiliated and suffering God and exalted and 
triumphant man, He is also the Prophet, Herald and Proclaimer of 
the name hallowed in Him, the kingdom come in Him, the will of 
God done in Him on earth as it is in heaven. This equation, how- 
ever, must now be developed and explained in a specific way. A 
presupposition decisive for its meaning must be particularly empha- 
sised. It must be stated expressly and considered with great pre- 
cision that in this equation we have the description of a history. In 
the " is " which links the life with the light, the covenant with the 
Word of God, the reconciliation with the revelation, Jesus Christ the 
High-priest and King with Jesus Christ the Prophet, there is con- 
cealed a drama. The " is " is thus to be understood in dynamic rather 
than static terms. This is what calls for emphasis. 

All the concepts used refer to a history, whether life, covenant and 
reconciliation on the one side, or light, Word and revelation on the 
other. Life, covenant and reconciliation all " are " as they take 
place. Similarly, light, Word and revelation " are " as that which is 
denoted by them occurs. Only as they happen, therefore, " are " 
they in this equation. That life is also light means that as true life it 
shines and radiates and gives light from God and for God. That the 
covenant is also Word means that in its institution, execution and 
fulfilment it makes itself known as it is enacted. That reconciliation 
is also revelation means that in its accomplishment, which establishes, 
orders and guarantees peace between God and man, it also reveals 
and proclaims itself as divine-human truth. But life, covenant and 
reconciliation are only material descriptions of the being, work and 
activity of Jesus Christ. We must thus continue that as true God and 
true man, as the One who accomplishes all that is described in these 
terms, Jesus Christ is not only the High-priest and King but also the 
Prophet, Herald and Proclaimer of this accomplishment. That is to 
say, He works and acts as such. He exists in the actual discharge of 
this specific office, in the corresponding rendering of service and con- 
firmation of lordship. But this means that He exists in this special 



166 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

form of His history. Hence in this third form too, as a doctrine of 
Jesus Christ the true light, Word and Revealer, as a doctrine of His 
prophetic office, Christology is a narration of His history, and specifi- 
cally of the shining of His light, the real speaking of the covenant, the 
revelation of reconciliation, the action of the Prophet Jesus Christ. 

The specific obligation to develop and explain our equation in this 
particular sense originates in two different respects from the matter 
itself. The first is formal, though not on that account any the less 
important or noteworthy. The second is material, and even more 
important and decisive in the ensuing discussion. 

The relationship between God and man denoted by the terms life, 
covenant and reconciliation does not rest on any necessity immanent 
in either the existence and nature of God or those of man. God does 
not owe it to man. And man has no claim to it. From the stand- 
point of both God and man it seems rather to be excluded and im- 
possible. It exists as it is created and takes place in Jesus Christ. 
Seen from above, it is actual in the free act of grace for which God 
determines Himself and upon which He resolves in Jesus Christ. 
Seen from below, it is actual in the free act of obedience in which man 
acknowledges the doing of the will of God active in the divine act of 
grace. In this its actuality as a free act of grace and obedience, it is a 
new thing between God and man. It is the sphere and character of 
this new thing, in that the life is also light, the covenant Word and 
the reconciliation revelation. It is still a matter of Jesus Christ and 
His activity, but now in His prophetic office and work. Here, too, 
nothing is self-evident, given or necessary. As the actuality of the 
relationship takes place, so its truth, i.e., its self-declaration, and 
therefore the grounding of its recognition, can only take place. Its 
occurrence is the prophecy of Jesus Christ. That He Himself, and in 
Him the life, covenant and reconciliation, shine out and are disclosed 
and made known, is an event, and can only be understood as such. 
It is a drama which can only be followed, or rather experienced and 
recounted. 

The necessity of a historical understanding of the equation results 
supremely from the fact that His light, Word and revelation no less 
than His life, covenant and reconciliation, are challenged by an 
opposition which encounters them, and His prophetic no less than 
His high-priestly and kingly service and rule thus consist practically 
in the overcoming of this opposition and answering of this challenge. 
They occur in an environment to which they are superior in right and 
might, but which is either hostile or alien, or at any rate strange. 
The " world " is this environment : humanity ; man in and with the 
cosmos ; man in his creaturely and historical nature. But we do 
well to think also of the Church and individual Christians in this 
respect. By this environment the Son of God and Man, Jesus Christ, 
is Himself challenged and assaulted as He challenges and assaults it 



3. Jesus is Victor 167 

by His existence and with His Word. His life is constantly con- 
fronted by death, the covenant by unfaithfulness and apostasy, recon- 
ciliation by strife. But this is also the situation of His prophetic 
office and work, ministry and action. His Word is met by the con- 
tradiction and His truth by the falsehood of His environment, and 
they consist in the exposing, resisting and overcoming of the false- 
hood and contradiction. This does not mean that absolute and final 
limits are set to Him, but it does mean that He has to contend with 
limits of relative and provisional seriousness. He is noticeably though 
not invincibly confined. And as His Word contradicts the contra- 
diction, it seems for its part to subject itself even to a certain bondage 
and conditioning, and to be spoken with a relative and provisional 
but unmistakeable restraint. We recall the expression in John i 6 : 
" The light shineth," but it shineth " in darkness " (whatever this 
may signify in detail). Yet we must not forget the continuation : 
" And the darkness overcame it not." This light which streams into 
the world is still the eternal light which cannot be vanquished or 
extinguished. Nevertheless, this does not alter the previous state- 
ment that it shines in a place or environment which is certainly 
illumined by it, but does not even partially shine itself, not corre- 
sponding to its shining with any brightness of its own, but being 
differentiated from it as darkness, and as such negatively opposing it 
with its own limited power. In face of this environment it does not 
yield but makes its way. Yet, in order finally to exclude and destroy 
it, it must do so step by step and therefore in a history. Or, as we 
might say, the Word of the covenant is uttered, going out through all 
lands, to the end of the world, like the voice and sound of Psalm IQ 4 *- 
Yet is it not something self-evident, given or necessary, but a new 
and special and wonderful thing both as a whole and in detail, if this 
does not take place in vain, if the Word achieves its object, if it finds 
,ears which are open or even partially open. Or again, reconciliation 
is revealed in all its clarity. Yet, as it is itself an event, it can only 
be an event if in the place where it happens, in the reconciled world 
of humanity, its revelation is confirmed by the fact that it is per- 
ceived in its truth and clarity, and it is thus recognised as the recon- 
ciliation of the world of humanity. Comprehensively, the great 
Prophet Jesus Christ is certainly present and at work, pronouncing 
authoritatively the first and last and total truth concerning the name 
and kingdom and will of God. Yet like the prophets before Him, and 
even in the circle of those who are with Him, He is a lonely Newcomer 
and Stranger, a Messenger who has something to say to the world 
which it does not and cannot know of itself, which is closed to it as it 
arbitrarily or indolently closes itself against it, which it is neither 
willing nor ready to receive, so that it is something which has to 
happen, and only can happen, if He does not remain lonely, if His 
message is not in vain but wins a hearing and obedience, if the seed 



168 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

sown by Him is not scattered to the winds but germinates and brings 
forth fruit. 

Hence we cannot in any sense understand in static terms the 
relationship between Him and the surrounding world of darkness. It 
is certainly not dualistic. We do not have the equilibrium of opposing 
forces, as though darkness had the claim and power finally to main- 
tain itself against light, as though its antithesis, opposition and 
challenge to light, its restricting of it, rested on an eternal and lasting 
order. On the other hand, it is not monistic. The power of light is 
not so overwhelming in relation to that of darkness that darkness 
has lost its power altogether, as though its antithesis were already 
removed, its opposition brushed aside, its challenging and restricting 
of light of no account. The only alternative is to think of it in terms 
of dynamic teleology, namely, in relation to the power of light, Word 
and revelation as this is active in great superiority yet has not so far 
attained its goal but is still wrestling toward it, being opposed by 
the power of darkness, which even though it yields in its clear inferior- 
ity, is still present and even active in its own negative and restrictive 
way. A history is here taking place ; a drama is being enacted ; a 
war waged to a successful conclusion. If from the very first there 
can be no doubt as to the issue of the action, there can also be no doubt 
that there is an action, and that it is taking place, and can thus be 
described only in the form of narration. 

In connexion with what has just been said concerning the necessity 
of a historical understanding of the prophetic work of Jesus Christ 
(particularly from the material standpoint last mentioned), and 
before we go on to present and therefore to narrate its occurrence in 
its various dimensions, we must first undertake two basic discussions 
the results of which will necessarily be with us in all that follows. 

I have chosen as the title for this sub-section the statement, or 
rather the challenge : " Jesus is Victor," for the simple reason that 
this statement, which is really to be heard and read as a challenge, is 
the sign under which a presentation and therefore a narration of the 
prophetic work of Jesus Christ must always stand. It tells of the 
issue but also of the beginning of the action, and in so doing of the 
dynamic and teleological character which marks it from its com- 
mencement to its goal. " Jesus is Victor," is the first and last and 
decisive word to be said in this respect. 

It has been popularised by the story of the Blumhardts, and first and 
supremely by that of J. C. Blumhardt the elder. It should not be overlooked 
that in content, far from having the character of a new revelation, it merely 
sums up and succinctly formulates many New Testament sayings behind which 
there may be seen either directly or indirectly the central witness of the whole 
of the New Testament. We may think of Jn. i6 88 : " In the world ye shall 
have tribulation : but be of good cheer ; I have overcome the world " ; or of 
Col. 2 1 , which tells us that when God " spoiled principalities and powers, he 



3- Jesus is Victor 169 

made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them," i.e., in the resurrection 
leading them in His triumphal march as subjects and prisoners ; or of 2 Tim. 
i 10 , where there is ascribed to Jesus Christ a completed abolition (icaTopyetv) of 
death ; or of Heb. 2 1 *, where He is said to have destroyed " him that had the 
power of death, that is, the devil." The things seen and heard in the Apocalypse 
may also be called to mind. Perhaps it is hardly relevant to think of the rider 
on the white horse who in 6 2 " went forth conquering and to conquer," since 
like the other three horsemen he seems to represent one of the unleashed forces 
of destruction. But we may certainly refer to the other Rider on a white horse 
who in ig llf - is called Faithful and True, the Word of God, the King of kings 
and Lord of lords, who " in righteousness doth judge and make war," whose 
eyes are " as a name of fire," who has on His head not one but many crowns, 
whose vesture is " dipped in blood," and out of whose mouth " goeth a sharp 
sword, that with it he should smite the nations , and he shall rule them with a 
rod of iron : and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty 
God." Similarly 5* : " Behold, the Lion of the tribe of Juda, the Root of David, 
hath prevailed " , and also the answer from heaven when the seventh trumpet 
is sounded : " The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our 
Lord, and of his Christ ; and he shall reign for ever and ever " (n 16 , cf. i2 10 ). 
We may naturally recall as well Paul's saying in i Cor. I5 54 about the swallowing 
up of death in victory, which is for Paul the goal of all history already actualised 
here and now in the resurrection of Jesus Christ , or his saying in Rom. 8 s7 that 
Christians are " more than conquerors through him that loved us " ; or the 
saying in i Cor. 15" that the Lord Jesus Christ " giveth us the victory " ; 
or the saying m i Jn. 5* " For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the 
world : and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith " ; 
or Paul again m 2 Cor 2 1 * . " Thanks be unto God, which always causeth 
us to triumph (fl/ua/^Seuovri) in Christ." But where does not the New Testament 
finally look in this direction ? Where does it speak on any other basis ? It 
would not be witness to the risen Jesus Christ if things were otherwise. 

Yet in the summary formulation : " Jesus is Victor," we do not have the 
witness of the New Testament, but that of J. C. Blumhardt. To be sure, he did 
not assert and declare it as a slogan which he himself had coined. He took it 
from a very curious source. In a formal report given in one of his church courts 
he tells us that he and many others first heard it m Mottlmgen on December 28, 
1843, at the climax of the two-year story of suffering, now about to become a 
story of healing, of someone called Gottkebm Dittus who was entrusted to 
>his pastoral care. It was not from Gotthebm herself that he heard the words, 
but from her sister Katherma who for a time had become implicated in her 
situation. With notable sobriety but great defimteness and astonishing concrete- 
ness, he tells us I am summarising (i) that this story of suffering unmistakeably 
had for him and all around the form of demon possession so often mentioned 
in the New Testament, (2) that his pastoral intervention was only participation 
in a conflict properly and decisively waged by Jesus rather than himself, and 
(3) that the story of healing which followed had no less unmistakeably the 
form of a victorious encounter of the living Jesus with the alien demonic power 
which tempted, dominated and tormented this person. Hence he heard and 
quoted the saying : " Jesus is Victor," not as a saying of her sister, but as a 
cry of despair Blumhardt refers to a shriek " which is almost inconceivable 
on human lips " which the demonic power uttered through her lips at the very 
moment when a superior opponent forced it to yield its control over Gottliebin 
this power being cautiously described by Blumhardt as " presumably," i.e., 
according to its own final self -characterisation, an " angel of Satan." We are 
forcibly reminded of the story ID Mk. i a - about the man / Trveu/zart d*a0apT<p 
who cried out. saying : " What have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth ? 
are thou come to destroy us ? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." 



170 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Like similar events in the New Testament, the occurrence during which 
Blumhardt heard this cry : " Jesus is Victor," has three aspects. On the first, 
it is realistically explained in the sense of ancient and modern mythology. On 
the second, it is explained in terms of modern psychopathology, or depth 
psychology. On the third, it is not explained at all but can only be estimated 
spiritually on the assumption that the two former explanations are also possible 
and even justifiable in their own way. 

Its spiritual estimation is possible on the basis of the influence exerted by this 
story of suffering and healing, and especially by the saying heard by Blumhardt 
and those around him on this decisive day, upon his own future life and activity 
and that of his son Chnstoph. However we may explain the battle of those 
two years and its issue, the fruits of the occurrence and the results of the saying 
are still unambiguously before us in the story of the Blumhardts as it com- 
menced at that time : in a new and unhesitating action in the light of the supenor 
life of the risen Jesus Christ ; in a new power and ]oy in the proclamation of the 
remission of sins as it has taken place and is found in Him ; in a new and self- 
evident apprehension of the reality of the kingdom of God as it has come in Him, 
and the lordship of God as it has been set up in Him , in new intercession with 
the unquenchable expectation and indestructible hope that there will be fresh 
declarations of this lordship and a fresh outpouring of the Holy Ghost on all 
flesh (of which Blumhardt saw the beginning in this event and the utterance of 
this cry) ; in a powerful challenge : " Die, that Christ may live " , in a life of 
powerful confidence in the coming and revelation of a new heaven and new 
earth ; and therefore in new and disturbed yet also comforted thinking in 
relation to world history and men in their sm and need, and in relation to that 
to which they are called, whether they realise it or not. 

These were the consequences which flowed from the experience of the elder 
Blumhardt with Gottliebm Dittus and which marked the whole movement 
centred in Mfittlmgen and later in Bad Boll. They were all a development of 
the disclosure and recognition which came to Blumhardt at this moment : 
" Jesus is Victor." It was not that he then believed and realised for the first 
time that this is the case. His whole narration of this two-year battle shows 
that he had entered it with a realisation of what this statement says, and with 
faith in it. This emerges in the sense of dread yet also the daring resolution with 
which he undertook the struggle. " Lord Jesus, help me. We have seen long 
enough what the devil can do. We now desire to see the power of Jesus " This 
was from the very first his prayer with and for the sufferer Nor did he meet 
with anything new except the new thing of the New Testament at the crisis 
of the battle. Yet the fact remains that this well-known truth was then much 
more to him than the confirmation of an existing conviction or the success of 
his pastoral venture in the strength of this conviction. It came as a new thing 
and in an unexpected way when he heard that simple statement : " Jesus is 
Victor," at the beginning of the healing of the afflicted in demonstration of the 
power of Jesus. It is to be noted that there is no question of a kind of divine 
inspiration. It was not mediated by a voice from above, but very much from 
below through the lips of a girl. It came as the wild and despainng surrender of 
the opposition, as its declaration of impotence, as the final cry of a routed angel 
of Satan, and therefore from within the darkest darkness of the world. For 
Blumhardt the new and surprising thing in the issue of the conflict, which 
necessarily found immediate expression in new insights and impulses and direc- 
tives, was the fact that the victory of Jesus is " eternally settled," as it is put in a 
later hymn, that it is objectively decided even in the darkest darkness of the 
world, and that it is now manifested, known and declared. 

It did not necessarily follow, but was actually the case, that in his own time, 
too, this was a new word and for long enough an isolated word. That Jesus 
conquers was not stated nor known, and certainly not " settled " in this way 



3. Jesus is Victor 171 

among the contemporaries of Blumhardt, whether extra or intra muros ecclesiae, 
whether in the world of Goethe or that of Hegel, whether in official circles, pietistic 
groups or theology, whether by the Rationalists, Supranaturalists and Pietists 
of the 1 8th century or the Romantics, Speculatives, Biblicists or theologians 
of the Awakening of the igth century. In the first instance it was merely the 
content of his own particular perception and confession. To be sure, many 
important things were then seen and said concerning Jesus the God-man of the 
early dogma, Jesus the supreme vehicle of eternal reason, Jesus the Friend of 
humanity and Teacher of ethics, Jesus the Saviour of souls, Jesus the centre of 
Christian piety, and, after the fabulous discovery of D. F. Strauss, Jesus the 
mythical personage If we turn to any secular or Christian book of the period, 
and among the Christian books it makes little difference whether it is a work of 
scholarship or edification, the two words said about Jesus in this declaration, 
namely, that He " is Victor," could be put on the outer margin of any of them, 
but they could not have the decisive and comprehensive significance, the em- 
phasis, which they have for Blumhardt. They would represent an intrusion in 
this sense. Even Christian missions, which took a new turn at this penod and 
in which Blumhardt played an important part, did not in the mam stand under 
this sign. No cause was seen from a reading of the New Testament to fashion 
this or a similar slogan nor to draw the consequences which it held for Blumhardt. 
Many years must elapse, and many things take place, be learned and forgotten, 
before what might almost be called the underground stream of the insight 
achieved by Blumhardt could come to the service and become increasingly 
influential over wide areas of Christian life and thought. Nor by a long way 
can we expect that all Christians even to-day are really awake to the movement 
which then began, let alone seriously implicated in it. 

But however that may be, the source of this thing which was new for Blum- 
hardt, for his contemporaries, and for our modern world, is to be found in the 
strange happening of the Mottlmgen struggle at whose decisive hour the cry : 
" Jesus is Victor," was uttered and heard The really strange element in this 
struggle does not in fact he at the point where it is usually seen by the hostile, 
confused and curious eye, namely, in the aspects of Blumhardt's account which 
call for explanation and perhaps find it in terms of mythology or medicine. 
Quite apart from the manner of its coming or the resultant interpretations, the 
really strange element is to be found in the utterance at the conclusion of this 
thing which is new, or which declared itself anew, and therefore in the cry which 
was then uttered and which came as a summons to Blumhardt, to his age, and 
to ourselves as its successors. The only question which is finally relevant in 
relation to the incident is the spiritual one whether or not we will hear this saying. 

What does this saying mean in the context of the discussion in 
which we are engaged ? For the understanding of the prophetic 
work of Jesus Christ, of the concepts light, Word and revelation 
which now concern us, it means that the occurrence or action of 
which we are to think has a definite bias or orientation which we have 
to take into account and to which we have to do justice even as we 
present and therefore narrate it. In our preceding deliberations we 
have made it quite clear that this occurrence has the character of a 
conflict to the extent that the light shines in the darkness which 
resists it, the prophecy of Jesus Christ taking place in relation to an 
opposition and challenge on the part of the world. And already we 
have indicated at least that there can be no question of an equality 
between the two factors which here confront and conflict with one 



172 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

another, but that their encounter can be understood and described 
only as that of a greatly superior and a greatly inferior, and therefore 
a struggle concerning the issue of which there can be no doubt. But 
this must now be emphasised for a true evaluation of the theme of 
this sub-section. And we are reminded of this by the story and cause 
of J. C. Blumhardt as summed up in the saying : " Jesus is Victor." 
The saying refers us to the Subject of the action, the dominating 
Character in the drama and the Hero in the conflict which here con- 
cerns us. It tells us that the One at work here as Prophet, light, 
Word and Revealer, is not One for whom his resisting and restraining 
opponent might prove too much, who might be too seriously jeopardised 
and held in check by the challenge and opposition presented. In 
relation to the issue of the conflict, as it is unforgettably brought before 
us in the Blumhardt story, and even at its very commencement, He 
is characterised as the One who is greatly superior in relation to His 
greatly inferior adversary. In some degree the saying analyses the 
name of Jesus, and it gathers up this analysis in the simple equation : 
Jesus = Viet or. This tells us that from the very outset, and come 
what may, the dynamic and teleology of the prophetic ministry and 
rule of Jesus Christ are unshakeably stamped by the fact that He is 
this One, Jesus. From the very outset it is clear and certain what 
will be the result of His ministry and rule, namely, that His right and 
might will triumph in opposition to the resistance and challenge 
offered to Him, removing the challenge and destroying the resistance. 
The equation made in this saying thus forbids us to take with equal 
seriousness both light and darkness, both Jesus and the contradiction 
and opposition which He meets. It certainly forbids us to take the 
contradiction and opposition even more seriously than Jesus. It 
commands us simply yet resolutely to count on it that, although the 
contradiction and opposition are to be taken seriously, yet we are to 
take infinitely more seriously the One whom it encounters, or rather 
who encounters, contradicts and opposes it, i.e., Jesus, and the dignity 
and power with which He does this as the One against whom the 
adversary can bring nothing corresponding, equivalent, or even 
similar. He and He alone is Kyrios. It is with this bias or orientation 
that there is enacted the history, action, drama, or conflict of the 
prophetic work of Jesus Christ, the shining of light in the darkness. 
As and because He, Jesus, is the acting Subject, the dominating 
Character, the warring Hero, it has this orientation. And because it 
has it, this declaration concerning Him is the first and final word to 
be said about it. If it is to be presented correctly, we must also say 
that the opponent which contradicts and resists the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ is also revealed as such and will be taken seriously in its 
own way. Otherwise it could not be a history, and could not be 
narrated as such. Nevertheless, the first and decisive requirement in 
the narration is that it should manifest the One who acts in it, and 



3. Jesus is Victor 173 

that He should be revealed throughout as the Lord who does not 
need to fear the storm on the lake, but possesses and uses the power 
to still it with His Word of command. The title of this sub-section is 
designed to emphasise this decisive requirement for an understanding 
of what is to be said at this point. 

A critical delimitation is demanded. Might we not adopt instead 
the title and slogan : " The Triumph of Grace " ? This would actually 
indicate what falls to be indicated. Grace is undoubtedly an apt and 
profound and at the right point necessary paraphrase of the name 
Jesus. As Jesus conquers, there triumphs in Him the manifested 
grace of God (Tit. 2 11 ). But the statement needed is so central and 
powerful that it is better not to paraphrase the name of Jesus, but to 
name it. " Triumph of Grace " might at any rate give rise to the 
impression that what is meant to be indicated is the victory of one 
principle, that of grace, over another which is to be described as evil, 
sin, the devil or death. But we are not concerned here with the pre- 
cedence, victory or triumph of a principle, even though the principle 
be that of grace. We are concerned with the living person of Jesus 
Christ. Strictly, it is not grace, but He Himself as its Bearer, Bringer 
and Revealer, who is the Victory, the light which is not overwhelmed 
by darkness, but before which darkness must yield until it is itself 
overwhelmed. He Himself is present as the Victor from the very 
outset. He is life ; in Him the covenant is fulfilled ; in Him recon- 
ciliation is effected ; in Him is everything which, again in Him, shines 
out into the world around. He makes Himself known as He makes 
known the name and kingdom and will of God on earth. It is in this 
self -declaration that He is superior to the contradiction and opposition 
brought against Him. In this context, therefore, " Jesus is Victor " 
is better than " The Triumph of Grace." 

It is not by accident that I refer to this alternative and emphasise that I 
' prefer not to choose it. The Triumph of Grace is the title of a book by G. C. 
Berkouwer which appeared in Dutch in 1954, in English in 1956 and in German 
in 1957, an< i which under this slogan dealt with my previous theological work, 
and particularly with the Church Dogmatics so far as it was then in print. Already 
in the Preface to IV, 2, I have referred to this work with the respect which it 
deserves. I can only join in according it the recognition which it has won in 
many different circles on account of its wide range of knowledge and reading, 
its perspicuous and penetrating mode of exposition and the sharpness and 
balance of its criticisms. And Berkouwer has undoubtedly laid his finger on 
an important point. I must admit, however, that I was taken aback when I 
saw the title given to his book. If I am in a sense understood by its clever and 
faithful author, yet in the last resort cannot think that I am genuinely under- 
stood for all his care and honesty, this is connected with the fact that he tries 
to understand me under this title. If my guess is right, it was an incidental 
remark of H. U. von Balthasar, to the effect that Christianity is for me an 
absolutely " triumphant affair/' which inclined Berkouwer to adopt this title. 
This is something which can be said, though I should prefer not to say it of 
Christianity. Nor can we describe the expression as unbiblical in view of the 
Pauline dpiappevctv. Yet understood thcmatically, and in connexion with the 



174 ^9- The Glory of the Mediator 

concept of grace, it does not seem to me to say with sufficient acuteness what 
should be said at this point. In trying to understand me under this title, it is 
perhaps inevitable that Berkouwer should develop the suspicions to which he 
gives utterance in this volume. 

He has well seen my initial and constant concern to display the superiority of 
God and His saving will and Word and work over the ruinous defensiveness and 
rejection, over the power of chaos, which meets Him on the part of the creature. 
But he asks whether this is justifiable. Do I not take the sting out of the whole 
problem of triumphing over this opposition ? In my presentation is not the 
" triumph of grace " in danger of leaving us with nothing more than a sham-fight, 
in opposition to the witness of Scripture ' Do I not fix the issue from the very 
first, and thus see and understand the whole movement too unilaterally ? For me 
are not grace and its triumph a decision which is not merely resolved already in 
God Himself and His eternal will but also taken prior to all history and even 
creation, so that it predetermines the contest between God and evil, and this con- 
test, with all that takes place in the creaturely world and therefore in time, can 
only develop irresistibly, like a piece of clockwork, with no real threats or genuine 
problems ? Berkouwer thinks that I have given him the occasion for this 
objection in my discussion of " God and Nothingness " m C.D., III, 3, 50, 
where I deviate from the language of the Bible by describing evil as an " impos- 
sible possibility " or an " ontological impossibility," thus being guilty not merely 
of a minimising of its significance and power but of a basic denial of its reality. 
As " nothingness " it can do nothing against grace It need not then be feared. 
The " triumph of grace " is somewhat cheaply assured from the outset, for it 
has no reality. It is empty in an a priori and ontological sense, in and with a 
speculative rather than a theological conception of it. Its utter emptiness is 
presupposed That is to say, it is posited in God and His eternal will, in relation 
to which history, sin, unbelief, and the divine judgment, but also the act of 
grace and faith as man's act of obedience, can no longer have for me any serious 
meaning. Hence there arises the sinister and m its systematisation unbibhcal 
triomfantelijkheid with which I allow myself to speak of the whole relationship 
between God and evil and therefore between God and man 

This is an objection which deserves to be weighed and answered. On a rather 
less comprehensive basis, it is in fact often made, especially m the north of 
Europe. Substantially, it is of a piece with the objection which Heinnch Vogel 
has long been urging against me. If I am not mistaken, it also links up with the 
question raised by Eduard Buess, particularly in relation to my view of pre- 
destination. Some explanation may thus be given, though within the context 
of Berkouwer's criticism. For this purpose I distinguish and interrelate four 
points which need elucidation. 

i. Berkouwer has clearly perceived and continually emphasised that 1 
find, or try to find, a christological basis for what I say concerning the will and 
Word and work of God on the one side, the evil which strives against these on the 
other, and finally their relationship to one another. The question is whether 
he and I mean the same thing by " christological " thinking and the related 
investigations, definitions, conclusions and foundations. I can only speak for 
myself, and I maintain that for me thinking is chnstological only when it consists 
in the perception, comprehension, understanding and estimation of the reality 
of the living person of Jesus Christ as attested by Holy Scripture, in attentiveness 
to the range and significance of His existence, in openness to His self-disclosure, 
in consistency in following Him as is demanded. In this formal definition I am 
confident that Berkouwer and I are in agreement, and I also think we can agree 
that christological thinking in this sense is a very different process from deduction 
from a given principle. I underline, however, that we are not dealing with a 
Christ-principle, but with Jesus Christ Himself as attested by Holy Scripture. 
Again, there is surely agreement between Berkouwer and myself that christo- 



3. Jesus is Victor 175 

logical thinking must always be a matter of the perception, apprehension, under- 
standing and estimation of the person who according to the witness of Holy 
Scripture discloses Himself as the crucified and risen Son of God and Son of 
Man, as the one almighty Mediator between God and man, indeed, between God 
and all creation, and therefore as the One to whom as such all power is given in 
heaven and on earth (Mt. 28"). We do not really speak of Jesus Christ, of His 
self-disclosure, of the witness of Holy Scripture, if we do not assume from the 
very first that we have to do with this person. There can hardly be any dis- 
agreement between Berkouwer and myself on this point. And surely we also 
agree that within theological thinking generally unconditional priority must be 
given to thinking which is attentive to the existence of the living person of Jesus 
Christ (just because it is this existence), so that per defimttonem christological 
thinking forms the unconditional basis for all other theological thinking, even 
that which deals with the relationship between God and evil. It is thus quite 
out of the question to start with certain prior decisions (e.g., concerning God, 
man, sm, grace etc.) and then to support these chnstologically. We cannot do 
this even with decisions for which we think there is a basis in Scripture, as though 
Scripture would give us any other foundations than the one laid in Jesus Christ. 
The only decisions which can have any place are those which follow after, which 
are consistent with thinking which follows Him, which arise in the course of 
chnstologicai thinking and the related investigations, definitions and conclusions. 
The obligation to give to christological thinking this unconditional precedence, 
this function of a basis in the strict sense, seems to me to be imposed quite 
simply by the character of the living person Jesus Christ as the almighty 
Mediator whom it must follow. Yet I have doubts whether Berkouwer does 
agree with me in respect of this obligation, and therefore this unconditional 
precedence of christological thinking within theology generally. Perhaps he 
cannot do so because he is more deeply rooted than I am in the older Reformed 
tradition which would have it, on what are thought to be good biblical grounds, 
that already in the doctrine of election we have a principle which has priority 
over the person and work of Jesus Christ, so that Jesus Christ is to be under- 
stood only as the mighty executive organ of the divine will of grace, and only a 
secondary place can be given to christological thinking. Again, it may be that 
he cannot do so because, so far as I can see, the story and influence of the 
Blumhardts have not yet penetrated effectively the very Calvinistic environment 
to which he owes his development. Thus Berkouwer can explain my conception 
of the relationship between God and evil only by thinking that I, too, proceed on 
the basis of a prior decision, and am thus ensnared in the unilateral and one-sided 
manipulation and development of a principle. But this is not how I myself 
understand my intention. I am not trying unilaterally to think through the 
principle of grace to the point at which I reach the " triumph of grace " in this 
relationship. I should regard such a procedure as quite illegitimate. My desire 
is that from the very first, at every point, and therefore in answering this question 
too, we should take with unconditional seriousness the fact that " Jesus is 
Victor " Surely Berkouwer cannot really have anything against this. For, on 
the basis of Holy Scripture at least, there is nothing that can seriously be alleged 
against it. 

2. If we start at this point, what will be the resultant picture of the encounter 
between God and the evil which strives against him on the side of the world ? 
Berkouwer is concerned lest it should present itself to me far too triumphantly 
as the encounter with an opponent who is from the very first absolutely inferior, 
as an action concerning whose issue in the overcoming of this opponent there 
can be no doubt since it is decided at the commencement. Now in my view this 
is a picture which might well arouse suspicion if it were gained deductively and 
constructively, by following through a principle supposedly given, from a prior 
decision concerning the nature of God, or that of evil, or the perfection of grace ; 



176 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

if the encounter were imprisoned in a conceptual synthesis in the discovery and 
formulation of which it might be imagined that the antithesis were really grasped. 
We should be arrant fools to believe that something of this sort ought to be 
attempted. There cannot and should not be any question of an enterprise of 
this nature. According to the biblical witness the partners in this encounter 
are not a God in abstracto and evil in abstracto, nor is their relationship fixed 
by a grace in abstracto. On the contrary, the living person of Jesus Christ in 
His character as the almighty Mediator between God and man is the one person, 
and that which contradicts and withstands this person is the other. But the 
fact that this person is envisaged as such means that the reference to the absolute 
superiority of this person cannot mean that we can grasp and master either Him 
or the whole situation. We can trust a person, and in the case of this person 
we must do so unconditionally and with final certainty, as Blumhardt did when 
he accepted that battle. But we cannot grasp a person, and especially not this 
person, in the sense of conceptual apprehension and control. Hence, we cannot 
grasp the whole situation in this sense, and there is no cause for anxiety in this 
respect. It is in the free act of this person, which cannot be comprised in any 
synthesis nor brought under any control, that the divine and therefore absolute 
superiority of this Partner is worked out and the situation between Him and His 
opponent is settled and not otherwise. Blumhardt never even dreamed that 
He could control Jesus He did something which is very different, and which 
is the only thing possible in relation to this person. He called upon Him for 
two years. He did so with absolute confidence. But he still called upon Him. 
It is thus a matter of confidence in this person, of His free act, of calling upon 
Him. Yet the counter-question has to be put to those who are concerned about 
this matter whether confidence in Jesus can be limited or assurance in calling 
upon Him restricted. Do we not forget or deny that we are dealing with this 
person in this character if we regard caution or a limited confidence as the better 
part ? Yet if we do not forget or deny this, we must agree with Blumhardt 
that it is " eternally settled " that, no matter what may be thought of His 
opponent, this Partner is in any case absolutely superior to him, that the action 
between them can end only in His triumph, and that we have thus to say that 
the issue of this action is in fact decided from its very commencement in view 
of the fact that the One who is the First will also be the Last. In relation to 
Him there is no justification for doubt Is this a bad thing ? Is doubt so 
attractive that it must always be regarded as justifiable ? After all, our state- 
ment is simply to the effect that Jesus is Victor. In relation to all other real or 
supposed victors, especially ourselves, there is place enough for doubt. And in 
the description of such victors there is plenty of room for the paradox so highly 
estimated by H. Vogel, and for every type of " counterpoint." But there can 
be no qualifying or calling in question the statement that Jesus is Victor. At 
this point there is no room for counterpoint. The statement does not contain 
any paradox. It is incontrovertible. It gives no ground for suspicion. Where 
does the Bible teach the contrary ? With reference to a logical principle of 
grace and its triumph, I concede that it might be doubted or that something 
might be said for the assertion of paradox. But in relation to the name of Jesus 
I see no alternative to my understanding. 

3. But we must now turn to the opponent of God in this relationship. Berk- 
ouwer is right when he maintains that, when I use such formulae as " nothing- 
ness," " impossible possibility," and " ontological impossibility " (especially 
the latter) to denote and describe this opponent comprehensively designated as 
evil, I am not merely speaking of its obscure, unfathomable and baffling nature 
from the standpoint of human knowledge, but saying something very definite 
about its nature and existence as though it were not at all concealed from human 
knowledge. And it is for this reason that he objects, dismissing the formulae 
used by me and finding in their application an indication of the dubious nature 



3. Jesus is Victor 177 

of my whole presentation. As he sees it, I am guilty of intellectual or speculative 
arrogance, but also of robbing evil of its sting, in my attempt to explain it by 
the use of such formulae. Above all, I am guilty of introducing formulae which 
almost seem to suggest or imply a denial of the reality of evil. There are passages 
in Berkouwer's book from which it may be gathered that, as he sees it, the 
conception of nothingness characterised by these formulae is really the basic 
article and decisive fulcrum of my whole doctrine of what he calls the " triumph 
of grace," and perhaps even of the whole of the Church Dogmatics. What am 
I to make of this ? 

First, I should like us to be agreed that we can achieve a true and relatively 
clear definition of evil only as we pursue thinking which is controlled by the 
living person of Jesus Christ in His self -disclosure and which is thus consistently 
" chnstological," but that along these lines we surely can achieve it, so that it 
is neither arrogant nor dangerous to seek the intellectus fidei in this respect instead 
of renouncing all understanding, and thus to strive at least for a true and clear 
conception. If I may presuppose agreement on this point, it is surely not im- 
possible to show that the construction of the formulae which I have selected 
and I might have chosen different and better ones, though they would have 
amounted to the same thing in substance is materially quite unavoidable. 
Nor should it be too difficult to show what is meant, and what cannot be meant, 
by them. It is not speculation, but a description which even the veriest child 
can understand, simply to say of evil in the first instance that it is what God 
does not will. But to say this is also to say that it is something which He never 
did nor could will, nor ever will nor can. It is thus that evil is characterised, 
judged and condemned in the self-disclosure of the living person of Jesus Christ. 
As opposition to God, it is that which is simply opposed to His will, and from 
eternity, in time and to all eternity negated, rejected, condemned and excluded 
by this will To be sure, we cannot first erect this or a similar definition of evil 
and then proceed by means of it to praise of the " triumph of grace " On what 
grounds could we do this ? But on the basis of the recognition that Jesus is 
Victor we can and must arrive at this definition Is this to deny its reality ? 
No, for when we see it in this light, in its concrete opposition to the will of God 
active and revealed in Jesus Christ, and in the counter-opposition to which it 
is thus exposed, we acknowledge and recognise its reality. But we recognise 
what kind of reality it is. We do not see merely how baffling it is for our human 
comprehension. We see rather the nature of its existence. It will always be 
obscure, unfathomable and baffling that something which is merely opposed to 
, the will of God can have reality. We do not understand how this can be. But 
it is of a piece with the nature of evil that if we could explain how it may have 
reality it would not be evil. Nor are we really thinking of evil if we think we 
can explain this. Yet the nature of the reality of what God has simply denied 
is shown up in the light of the One who withstands it as Victor. Hence it can 
and must be denoted and described by those who know the reality of this Victor. 
It can and must be known and defined in and with His reality. Berkouwer, 
too, can and must define it in some way. Has he some better starting-point 
and therefore some better proposal ? And is it really the case that the sting of 
evil is withdrawn when, starting with God and Jesus Christ, we define it as that 
which is opposed to the will of God, so that it is not merely later but from the very 
outset negated, rejected and excluded by this will, its nature being thus under- 
stood as perversion, its greatness as that of mischief, its power as that of im- 
potence ? Is there any sharper discrimination of evil or warning against it, any 
stronger recognition of its sinister character, than that which is pronounced 
with this definition m accordance with the condemnation obviously passed on 
it in God's own attitude towards it in the existence of Jesus the Victor ? 

I now turn in detail to the formulae used in this connexion. It is obvious 
that I have fashioned them myself, and that they are not to be found in the 



178 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Bible. Nowhere does Scripture itself speak of " nothingness/' of " impossible 
possibility/' or especially of " ontological impossibility." Yet in theological 
language in every age (even in that of the Reformers and Berkouwer himself) 
terms and formulae are used which have no direct equivalents in the Bible, but 
which we do not reject or suspect for this reason alone. Such formulae are 
fashioned when it is necessary to summarise briefly, tersely and strongly, in 
delimitation against misconceptions and mistakes and for continuing use, in- 
sights which have been won from the Bible and are to be developed in accordance 
with it. They are to be interpreted in the light of the insights, and not vice 
versa. In the best sense of the expression, we must take them cum grano salis. 
The homoousios of Athanasius is of this character, and so too, on a different level, 
are the terms which I use to describe evil. They simply gather together what 
I am trying to develop in this respect. 

When I speak of nothingness, I cannot mean that evil is nothing, that it 
does not exist, or that it has no reality. I mean that it exists only in the negativity 
proper to it in its relationship to God and decisively in God's relationship of 
repudiation to it. It does not exist as God does, nor as His creatures, amongst 
which it is not to be numbered. It has no basis for its being. It has no right 
to the existence which to our sorrow we cannot deny to it. Its existence, signific- 
ance and reality are not distinguished by any value nor positive strength. The 
nature underlying its existence and activity is perversion. Its right to be and 
to express itself is simply that of wrong. In this sense it is nothingness. 

" Impossible possibility " is another term for the same thing. If it is a 
paradox, it is used in the sphere to which paradox properly belongs. What it 
denotes is the absurd possibility of the absurd. Since evil has and is reality 
in its fatal manner, we have to reckon with its possibility, with its power to be 
real. What kind of a power is this ? Can it be described as any other than the 
power of impotence and therefore the possibility of the impossible ? Evil exists 
only per nefas, in the fact of a revolt which has no positive basis, which can have 
its ratio only in the abyss, which as such can be no more than the product of 
unreason. It lacks any justifying raison d'etre. This is why we cannot explain 
either the fact that it exists, or the way in which it does so. This is why its 
reality is so baffling to our understanding. But as this baffling reality it is 
known, and therefore needs to be, and can be, denoted and described. Those 
who dislike the formula " impossible possibility " are at liberty to suggest an 
alternative. 

Particular offence is taken by Berkouwer at the third suggestion, namely, 
" ontological impossibility." I have no great affection for this myself, but do 
not see that it is so wholly inappropriate. What it means is that the nature of 
evil as the negation negated by God disqualifies its being, and therefore its 
undeniable existence, as impossible, meaningless, illegitimate, valueless and 
without foundation. If we are to speak of a class or level of being which might 
properly be ascribed to evil in all its shapes and forms as distinct from the being 
of God and that of His creatures, we can describe it only as the class or level 
of the being which, in radical distinction from that of creation, is negated, re- 
jected and excluded by God. When we weigh and understand the formula in 
the light of everything which has gone before, is it really so speculative and 
therefore dangerous ? It may well be that mysteries are discovered in it which 
it does not contain in my own usage. For instance, on the grounds of a linguistic 
misunderstanding, Berkouwer thinks that in its attempt to bring out the vigour 
of the rejection of evil as it is to be seen in Jesus Christ, and thus to understand 
its absolute inferiority, this formula must always refer in some form to a self- 
differentiation within the being of God which underlies the ontological impossi- 
bility of evil, whereas what I myself had in view was simply the original self- 
differentiation of God from evil, i.e., His original turning aside from the possi- 
bility of chaos mentioned in Gen. i 1 . Evil is what it is according to the divine 



3. Jesus is Victor 179 

sentence, no other, no more and no less. Hence, it is but only in the character 
of " ontological impossibility." 

4. Do these presuppositions really mean that the historical character of the 
encounter between God and evil is threatened or even destroyed ? Instead of a 
real history, does it become a mere process, which can finally be reduced to 
conceptual analysis, if the overcoming of evil is resolved and actually accomplished 
in the eternal will of God, if the evil to be overcome in the encounter is nothing- 
ness, and if on both sides the issue is thus decided at the very commencement ? 
Berkouwer is particularly critical of my use of the phrase " from the very outset " 
in this connexion. But I am unrepentant. We surely do not see the wood for 
the trees if this kind of objection is raised and pressed here. For to what do 
we refer when we speak of God's encounter with evil, and with this reference 
count upon it " from the very outset " that God is infinitely greater and stronger 
than evil and evil is thus mean and despicable in relation to the One who en- 
counters it ? Are we speaking of two principles, a positive arbitrarily endowed 
with the highest possible qualities, and a negative no less arbitrarily endowed 
with the lowest possible ? If this were so, there might be force in the criticism. 
No history would be possible nor even conceivable between two such principles. 
In an easy conceptual triumph, their very opposition would mean at once that 
the first would per se consist in the destruction of the second, and the second 
would per se be destroyed by the first. But this is not at all the case. We speak 
of Jesus as Victor, of the God active and revealed in Him, and of evil as known 
in confrontation with the God active and revealed in Him. How do we know 
that the overcoming of evil is resolved and even accomplished in the eternal 
will of God, and that the evil which opposes this will is nothingness ? We know 
it quite simply because we have before us the conflict which takes place between 
them in Jesus, in His encounter with the world. We know it because we take 
seriously the manner in which the conflict is waged in Him as the source of our 
sure and certain knowledge of this matter. In other words, we know it because 
we try to be consistently chnstological in our whole thinking on the subject. 
Jesus ! And we cannot avoid using such words as " conflict " and " event " 
to describe what is before us. To say " Jesus " is necessarily to say " history," 
His history, the history in which He is what He is and does what He does. In 
His history we know God, and we also know evil and their relationship the one 
to the other but only from this source and in this way. But at this point a way 
is trodden. A question is raised and answered. A sentence is pronounced and 
judgment is executed and suffered. A faith and obedience are demanded and 
displayed. Prayer is offered. A cross is borne, and on this cross suffering is 
endured. From the deepest depths a cry is raised to heaven. Nothing is self- 
evident, obvious or matter-of-course. The day must be carried against the 
fiercest opposition A war is waged against sin, death and the devil. It is in 
this war that Jesus is Victor, even though He is the almighty Mediator between 
God and man, and the eternal will of God fulfilled in His faith and obedience is 
absolutely superior to the contradiction and opposition which are only con- 
temptible nothingness in face of this towering opponent, and the issue is thus 
certain at the commencement and therefore " from the very outset." The 
One who treads this way, who causes this situation of conflict seriously to fall 
on Him, who accepts and endures this conflict, who acts in it, and in this way, 
in His free act, overcomes the enemy and is thus the Victor, is the living Jesus 
Christ. And it is as He does this in His life and death, demonstrating and reveal- 
ing what is resolved and fulfilled in the eternal will of God, that He also demon- 
strates and reveals the impossibility, absurdity, valuelessness and impotence of 
evil. The crucified and slain Jesus is the One who triumphs, demonstrating and 
revealing what is on the right hand and what on the left. He does this, and we 
must keep to the fact that He does. But how can we ever imagine that this is 
an easy " triumph of grace " ? How can we overlook or deny that we have to 



i8o 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

do here with encounter and struggle, and therefore with history ? Indeed, we 
may note at this point that the disciple is not above his Master. We, too, must 
enter into this history and therefore this conflict of His. We have clear confidence 
concerning its issue. Only victory is to be expected in view of its commence- 
ment, in view of Jesus, who has already fought the battle. Yet we have this 
confidence only with the last and bitter seriousness enjoined and demanded 
by this commencement, by Jesus. Neither hesitant qualifications nor rash or 
slothful assurance are possible at this point. The only possibility is perfect 
confidence in the perfect, yearning, yet resolute expectation of that on which 
it is grounded. How can we pray : f< Thy kingdom come," if we do not start 
with the sure and certain fact that in Jesus the kingdom has already drawn near 
in all its glory ? Conversely, how can we start with the sure and certain fact 
if on this basis we do not pray and implore and beseech : " Thy kingdom come " ? 
What option have we but to recognise in the history in which Jesus exists what 
is from the very outset real and true on the right hand and on the left, and 
where else but in this history can we recognise from the very outset what is real 
and true on the right hand and on the left ? Can we not say that in the last 
resort there is no reason for the anxiety which seems to be felt by Berkouwer 
and others on this point ? 

The second basic discussion to which we now move concerns the 
context in which emphatic reference must now be made to the his- 
torical, dramatic and warring character of the reconciliation of the 
world with God. Our concern is with this event of reconciliation as 
an event of revelation. It is with the life which shines as such, the 
covenant which speaks for itself, the reality of the fellowship of God 
and man restored in Jesus Christ as this declares itself to be also 
truth. It is with Jesus Christ Himself in His prophetic office and 
work, as He confesses and makes Himself known as the humiliated 
Son of God and the exalted Son of Man, and therefore as the Mediator 
between God and man, and therefore as the One who restores fellow- 
ship between them and accomplishes the justification and sanctifica- 
tion of man. In this context, therefore, our problem is that of know- 
ing the atonement. How is it that its occurrence is not hidden but 
may be and actually is perceived ? How is it that it does not remain 
alone, but achieves significance, regard and acknowledgement in the 
world and among men ? How is it that the cosmos reconciled in 
Jesus Christ realises how matters stand with it ? How is it that men 
come to see in Jesus Christ their Fellow and Brother ? How is it 
that they are discovered, and discover themselves, as the people who 
have their own life, and are justified and sanctified, in Him ? It is 
in this connexion that the prophetic office and work of Jesus Christ are 
relevant as an integrating factor in the event of reconciliation. A 
" prophet " in the biblical sense is one to whom it is given to see and 
understand the doing of the will of God on earth, and who is also 
charged to declare, expound and explain, and thus to mediate, his 
understanding, thus enabling others to participate in what takes 
place. Jesus Christ is the Prophet who knows and proclaims the will 
of God which is done in His existence. The Synoptic statement that 
" the kingdom of God is at hand, 11 materially identical with the 



3. Jesus is Victor 181 

Johannine "I am " (fyw ct/u), is the sum and substance of His 
prophetic message and therefore of the knowledge mediated by Him. 
This is the context in which the historicity of the atonement now calls 
for particular emphasis. 

It can be no more than a question of particular emphasis. Recon- 
ciliation as a whole is history which as such can only be recounted. 
History is the life of all men actualised in Jesus Christ. It is the 
history of the covenant fulfilled in Him. That the Son of God humili- 
ated Himself to be with us and for us in order that He could uncover 
the pride of man and positively accomplish his justification, the 
gathering of His community in the world and the awakening of faith 
in Him ; and again, that the Son of Man should be exalted to fellow- 
ship with God in order that He should uncover the sloth of man, and 
positively accomplish his sanctification, the upbuilding of a com- 
munity of God on earth, and the awakening of love, all this was 
worked out on the dramatic way of conflict from Bethlehem to 
Golgotha, and was and is therefore history. Salvation takes place in 
this salvation history. There cannot, then, be intended an exclusive 
but only a special emphasis, to be undertaken in parte pro toto, if we 
underline the historicity of the atonement specifically in relation to the 
fact that in its fulfilment this is itself the answer to the problem of 
its declaration and knowledge, or if we point out that in its prophetic 
element it has a specifically historical character. All that can be 
meant is that in our present context, in its prophetic element, its 
historical character forces itself upon us with a special and direct 
insistence acquired only at this point, and is thus to be firmly grasped. 
How far is this really so ? How far does the historicity of the atone- 
ment particularly impinge upon us at this point, in relation to the 
prophetic work and office of Jesus Christ, so that it is meaningful to 
give it particular attention in the present context ? 
x The general answer to this question must be to the effect that, as 
the event of reconciliation is also that of revelation or prophecy, as 
the life as such is also light, it emerges from the apparent distance in 
which it is played out for us men, and comes to affect us directly, so 
that we are not merely implicated in its occurrence, but realise that 
this is the case. As it is heard and perceptible as Word, it engages 
our attention and we men see that the event of reconciliation of 
which it speaks is an event for us and to us, and that we are impli- 
cated in such a way that we can no longer exist at all without being 
implicated. " We men " means all the men who have not yet per- 
ceived, or who have forgotten or denied again. It means all the men 
who in the first instance think that they are not directly, properly and 
seriously implicated either in the history of Israel or in that of Jesus 
Christ as first its intimation and then its enactment. It means all the 
men who can be and actually are of the opinion that they belong to 
another sphere than that in which it has taken place that the kingdom 



182 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of God has drawn near, that God has reconciled the world to Himself, 
that He has established and maintains and fulfils the covenant 
between Himself and man, that He makes a reality of true life in 
fellowship with Himself. No matter what has taken place according 
to the witness of the Bible, as they see it they themselves are not 
affected in their own sphere, but are remote from it, being at best 
only spectators of a rather unusual drama or hearers of rather a 
strange message, and therefore free either to regard the matter as so 
much more history or myth, or to turn away from it with a complete 
lack or disengagement of interest to pursue their own more pressing 
thoughts and affairs. Are we not all men who think that they can 
treat the occurrence of reconciliation, the history of salvation, in this 
way ? In the first instance, and continually, does not the story seem 
to affect us in this way, and therefore not really to affect us, because 
it does not seem to refer in any sense to ourselves ? But in so far as 
the event of reconciliation is also that of revelation ; in so far as the 
justification and sanctification of man (as we shall see in greater 
detail later) are also his vocation ; in so far as Jesus Christ is not 
only High-priest and King but also Prophet, this appearance is torn 
aside and this opinion is made untenable. For as reconciliation is 
also revelation, the life light, the covenant Word and Jesus Christ 
Prophet, the sphere is burst wide open where we shut ourselves off 
from Him, the distance which we think that we can and should keep 
is overcome, the water pours over the dam behind whose shelter we 
believe that we have solid ground under our feet apart from the being 
and action of Jesus Christ, and, putting an end to our mere seeing 
and hearing, to our evaluations in terms of history and myth, and to 
our unconcerned hastening past Him to very different thoughts and 
affairs, He brings us right into the picture, namely, into His picture, 
the dynamic picture of His action. No safeguard, protest or shrugging 
of the shoulders can help us here. Whatever it may or may not mean 
for us subjectively ; whatever may be its reflection in our conscious- 
ness, the fact that reconciliation is also revelation and Jesus Christ 
lives and works as Prophet means that objectively we can no longer 
be remote from Him in a private sphere, but that we are drawn into 
His sphere, into what takes place in Him. This occurrence becomes 
objectively our own experience. We experience here what takes 
place there in the supposed but only apparent " there " which in 
reality encloses our here and in which our here is also there. That 
man's here (and he himself in his here) is truly there ; that the there 
of that history is here in reality man's own history this is what is 
disclosed as reconciliation is also revelation and Jesus Christ acts also 
as Prophet. In His prophecy He draws the logical conclusions of His 
own well-founded claim to lordship over the whole world and all men. 
In His prophecy He comes " unto his own " (Jn. i 11 ). 

This is the general answer to our question. To what degree is the 



3. Jesus is Victor 183 

historicity of the atonement particularly distinguished in its character 
as revelation ? To the degree that in this character it proves itself to 
be a history which encroaches and impinges upon us men no matter 
who we are or what we may think of ourselves, thus showing itself to 
be not merely a history of the usual historical or mythical type, but 
history in the supreme sense, history in which we have a share whether 
we realise and like it or not, history in which our own history takes 
place. But we must consider the matter more closely. 

In the occurrence of the prophecy of Jesus Christ, in His being as 
God's Word to us men, there takes place (i) the mediation and estab- 
lishment of a specific knowledge, namely, the knowledge whose subject 
and content is neither directly nor indirectly the man who knows, 
but He Himself, who also mediates and establishes it. He Himself is 
the reconciliation of the world to God which He declares. As He 
declares this and therefore Himself (eyw i/zi), as in the discharge of 
His prophetic office He mediates and establishes knowledge of Him- 
self, He encounters man, approaching and confronting him, setting 
Himself over against him as the One who is for him but is not known, 
regarded or valued by him, as the One whose existence is filled with a 
salvation which man has overlooked, as the One who is the true life 
of man as yet unknown and unrecognised by him, as the One who 
comes to him as to an alienated possession, as the One who is thus to 
him a new and strange Counterpart. That man experiences this con- 
frontation with Jesus Christ ; that he comes to have dealings with 
this new and strange Counterpart ; that he cannot avoid wrestling 
with Him, is the basic form of the revelation, of the event in which 
reconciliation overcomes and destroys man's distance from it, approach- 
ing man, encroaching and impinging upon him, disclosing itself to 
him and making itself the subject and content of his knowledge. 
Being itself history as the subject and content of his knowledge, its 
revelation, the knowledge mediated and established by it, is also 
history as man's confrontation with the new and strange Jesus Christ. 
In this fulfilment which is also history, the history of Israel known in 
it, and the history of Jesus Christ which fulfils it, show themselves to 
be man's own history, his salvation history. It is in the particularity 
which consists in this demonstration that the revelation of reconcilia- 
tion has its specific historical character. 

We cannot impress upon ourselves too strongly that in the language of the 
Bible knowledge (yada, yiyva>aKiv) does not mean the acquisition of neutral in- 
formation, which can be expressed in statements, principles and systems, con- 
cerning a being which confronts man, nor does it mean the entry into passive 
contemplation of a being which exists beyond the phenomenal world. What it 
really means is the process or history in which man, certainly observing and 
thinking, using his senses, intelligence and imagination, but also his will, action 
and " heart/' and therefore as whole man, becomes aware of another history 
which in the first instance encounters him as an alien history from without, 
and becomes aware of it in such a compelling way that he cannot be neutral 



184 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

towards it, but finds himself summoned to disclose and give himself to it in return, 
to direct himself according to the law which he encounters in it, to be taken up 
into its movement, in short, to demonstrate the acquaintance which he has been 
given with this other history in a corresponding alteration of his own being, 
action and conduct. We can and should say even more emphatically that 
knowledge in the biblical sense is the process m which the distant " object " 
dissolves as it were, overcoming both its distance and its objectivity and coming 
to man as acting Subject, entering into the man who knows and subjecting him 
to this transformation. 

Israel is to know in its heart that " as a man chasteneth his son, so the Lord 
thy God chasteneth thee," and it is thus to keep His commandments, to walk in 
His ways and to fear Him (Deut. 8 6 - 6 ). It is to know the greatness of Yahweh, 
" his mighty hand, and his stretched out arm, and his miracles, and his acts, 
which he did in the midst of Egypt," at the Red Sea and in the wilderness, and 
it is thus to obey His Law (Deut. n 8 ' 8 ). A similar awareness of God's activity 
in and to Israel and among the nations, is also intended when it is said that there 
is perception that " the Lord is among us " (Josh. 22 81 ), that His hand is strong 
(Josh. 4"), that He alone is most high (Ps. 83 18 ), and that as such He " ruleth 
in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over 
it the basest of men " (Dan. 4") ; or even more simply when reference is made 
to the knowledge that " I am God " (Ps. 46 10 , cf. ioo 8 ) or to the knowledge of 
the name of God (i K. 8 43 ). There is never any suggestion in all this of merely 
an objective seeing and understanding of the divine nature and being. What is 
always meant is to know His ways (Ps. 67*), to know that the Lord has done 
this or that (Is. 4i 80 ). And this knowledge of God in His past, present or future 
action according to the direct or indirect contexts of these developments always 
implies a new human action corresponding to the divine and altered in relation 
to it. In this regard, note should be taken of Is. n 9 , where in the depiction of 
the coming Messianic reign of peace it is said : " They shall not hurt nor destroy 
in all my holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, 
as the waters cover the sea." This is the alteration which the knowledge of God 
does not merely entail but necessarily encloses. " As the eyes of servants look 
unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her 
mistress ; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy 
upon us " (Ps. I23 8 ). This is how it is with the knc sledge of God. The " know- 
ledge of the Holy One " according to Prov. g 10 is practical understanding That 
is, the willing and doing of the Holy One, as it is known, creates for itself a 
counterpart in the history of the one who knows. If man knows God, this 
includes and primarily implies the fact that God acts towards man as the One 
who knows. It is thus inevitable that the human knowledge should have a total 
reference and claim and alter the whole man. This is dramatically expressed 
in the fact that the same word yada is obviously used to denote the act of sexual 
intercourse. 

Now in the New Testament the terms yiyvatoicciv and yv&ais can also be applied 
to intellectual and contemplative apprehension. Yet nowhere can it be said 
that knowledge is merely of this type, having its theme and content in abstractly 
objective things or essences. Here, too, since everything characterised and de- 
scribed as an object of knowledge is to be understood as a description of the 
divine action and therefore historically, it is a matter of the salvation which 
comes to man (Lk. i 77 ), of the truth which discloses itself to him (i Tim. 2*), 
of the grace of God directed toward him (Col. i fl ), of the love which He has for 
us (i Jn. 4 16 ), of His legal decision which alters our whole situation (SiKcuoovVry, 
Rom. io 8 ), of what is given us in Him (i Cor. 2 18 ). The contexts show, and 
usually state, that it is a matter of the knowledge of the Son of God (Eph. 4"), 
of knowing Him " and the power of his resurrection " (Phil. 3 10 ), of knowing that 
He is in or among us (2 Cor. 13*). He, Jesus Christ, is the mystery of God (Col. 



3- Jesus is Victor 185 

2 8 ). Knowledge of the one true God is identical (Jn. 17** M ) with the knowledge 
that He has sent this One, Jesus Christ, that the Father is in Him and He in the 
Father (Jn. IO M ), but also that we are in Him (Jn. 14*), or according to the most 
succinct formulation quite simply that " I am " (Jn. 8 18 ). The emyvowrts avroC 
is thus the work of the Spirit of wisdom and revelation (Eph. i 17 ) for whose 
gifts we pray. And again and supremely the history marked by this name 
expresses itself in the history of the one who knows. The terms faith and love 
and obedience are always near when reference is made to knowledge. Knowledge 
in the biblical sense directly includes, indeed, it is itself at root, /teravota, con- 
version, the transformation of the vovs, and therefore of the whole man, in accord- 
ance with the One known by him. Note should be taken of what is included in 
the knowledge of Jesus Christ according to Eph. I 18f - : " That the eyes of your 
understanding should be enlightened ; that ye may know what is the hope of 
his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, and 
what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe." To 
know Him is to come into the sphere of this incomparable power of His. To 
know God in Him is thus to be known of Him, according to the bold expression 
of Paul (Gal. 4* ; i Cor. 8 s , 13") in which the object becomes the Subject. Or, 
according to his even bolder expression (i Cor. 2"), it is to receive and have the 
vovs of Jesus Christ Himself, and thus to know in fellowship with the One who 
is known and in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col. 
2 s ). So radical is the transformation which comes on man in this knowledge, 
so full of content is his own history in it, and so far is this intelhgere from a merely 
ratiocmative, argumentative or even contemplative process which might be 
described as intellectuahstic and the results of which might be attacked and 
denounced as empty gnosis \ Paul was well aware what he was about when 
among the various things for which he gives thanks or prays in relation to his 
churches he almost always gives pride of place to gnosis (irdo-a yv&ais, which is 
included m the one), and when he says that for his own part he counts everything 
loss compared with the vircpcxov of the one knowledge which includes all others, 
the knowledge of Jesus Christ His Lord (Phil 3 8 ). 

As the prophetic work of Jesus Christ takes place, and the atone- 
ment is thus revealed and known, there also emerges (2) the opposi- 
tion of the world and man towards it. We have to do with the world 
reconciled to God in Jesus Christ, and the man justified and sanctified 
in Him, but with the world which for its own part has not yet found 
itself in what has been done in Jesus Christ to it and for it, and 
with the man who on his side still lags behind the justification 
and sanctification accomplished for him in Jesus Christ. In other 
words, we have to do with the world and man which have not yet 
followed up with their own decision the gracious decision of God 
concerning them. It is in this " not yet " that there is place for 
futile resistance to the name of God already hallowed in Jesus Christ, 
the kingdom of God already come in Him, the will of God already 
done in Him on earth as it is in heaven. And in the sphere left by 
this " not yet " it is always and everywhere present, as creaturely 
being is always and everywhere determined by it as well as by what 
the gracious God has already done on its behalf. At what point in 
space or time can we ever say that in this place left to it resistance 
is not present ? Can we ever say this even within the sphere of the 
community of Jesus Christ ? Its presence and influence characterise 



186 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the creation which in the death of Jesus Christ and in virtue of His 
resurrection from the dead is already reconciled to God, but is not 
yet redeemed and consummated by His coming in glory, i.e., in His 
final, definitive and universal revelation. Life, the covenant, and 
reconciliation are one thing, but ranged against this there are also 
nothingness and evil, which in their impossible mode and existence 
still have their own shape and freedom of action in the world and 
among men, and can thus assert themselves as a real factor to be 
taken in all seriousness. 

Latently, this factor is always and everywhere present and active. 
But when the prophecy of Jesus Christ takes place, when reconcilia- 
tion is heard as the Word of reconciliation and knowledge is established, 
it becomes open contradiction. As such it opposes the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ, meeting it on its own level, calling in question the 
declaration and recognition of what God has done and achieved for 
His creature in Jesus Christ at the very point where it comes to the 
world and man as the proclamation of His saving grace. As the light 
of life shines out into the surrounding darkness, the question arises 
whether the darkness will yield before it or resist it. But it would 
not be the not yet dissipated darkness which can only hate the light 
as such if it did not resist it. And as the light shines in it, there is 
revealed, in the fact that it cannot dissipate or overcome it, the power 
which it still has to resist, to continue to be darkness. Again, as the 
world is told, not merely what is resolved concerning it, but what has 
akeady been done for it, for its total renewal and transformation ; 
as it is thus given news concerning itself, it has to decide whether it 
will accept this information or not. But how could it be the unre- 
deemed world on this side of the final coming of Jesus Christ if it did 
not seriously reject this information which is so diametrically opposed 
to its own understanding of itself ? Again, as there begins this pro- 
cess of the knowledge of the true and living God in His acts ; as that 
which, or rather the One whom man would like to regard as a distant 
object to be regarded, studied and contemplated only at a distance, 
now threatens to come to him and even into him, overpowering him 
and subjecting him to a total alteration and renewal, it must be 
shown whether or not he will accept the proffered liberty of the children 
of God. Will he allow the process of knowledge which begins on this 
basis, and therefore his own alteration and renewal, to take its course ? 
Or will he resist and evade this new and strange Subject, and His 
claim to lordship, and therefore the development and consummation 
of the knowledge established in His power, and even the establishment 
of the knowledge itself ? Will he not set against what takes place and 
what is to be made of him a final hindrance in the name and exercise 
of what he regards as his own freedom ? How could he be the being 
which continually thinks that by saying " I " it places itself on the basic 
rock of all reality, if in this situation he did not find himself incited 



3. Jesus is Victor 187 

and summoned to resolute opposition ? What does it mean to him 
that this Other says " I am " ? How can he accept the fact that he 
knows only on the basis and according to the measure of his being 
known by this Other ? Hie Rhodus, hie salta I Who has any desire 
for the necessary saltare ? And who will not base his lack of desire 
on his incapacity ? Who will not think that at this point he is con- 
fronted by a kind of emergency, and is thus justified in opposing the 
requirement made of him ? 

It is in the question of knowledge posed by the Word of recon- 
ciliation, i.e., by reconciliation in its form as revelation, by the pro- 
phetic work of Jesus Christ, that man's opposition to the gracious 
will and work of God is brought to expression in the form of his con- 
tradiction. As we have seen, the revelation and knowledge of Jesus 
Christ is the history in which He confronts man with Himself, in 
which man and his history are thus drawn into the history of Jesus 
Christ. With man and his history, there is thus drawn into the same 
history of Jesus Christ the resistance which he brings against Him, 
and therefore concretely the contradiction with which he rejects His 
revelation and knowledge, the obstruction with which he tries to 
hamper and suppress it at its very commencement and in its progress 
and completion. With man and his history, therefore, there is drawn 
into the history of Jesus Christ the nothingness or evil still present 
and active in the world which is not yet redeemed. As Jesus Christ 
confronts man, He confronts with His prophetic Word this element 
which is quite unworthy in its sinister sordidness and shame, integrating 
it into His own history, letting it play the role of His opponent, allow- 
ing it to show its nature, desires and ability in contrast with Him, 
exposing Himself to its opposition yet also constituting Himself the 
Opponent of this opposition, causing this adversary to put to Him 
the question and problem for which He has the answer. It will be a 
far superior answer. It will confound the adversary. It will remove 
the question and show the problem to be ridiculous. But it will still 
be the answer to the question put by the existence of this adversary. 
As He reveals Himself and gives Himself to be known, His history, 
as that which also encroaches and impinges upon ours, acquires the 
specific character of a drama consisting in this conflict. As He reveals 
Himself and gives Himself to be known as the One in whom God's 
gracious decision has been made concerning the world and man, the 
devil is let loose on the side of the world and man. 

It is for this reason that most strikingly the New Testament speaks with 
great emphasis not only of a knowledge but also of an ignorance of God. In the 
Old Testament already the saying of Isaiah (n 9 ) about the knowledge of Yahweh 
which will fill the earth to the exclusion of all wicked action is accompanied by 
the complaint of his contemporary Hosea (4 1 ) that " there is no truth, nor mercy, 
nor knowledge of God in the land." It is in this light that we have to under- 
stand the sharp assertion of Paul in I Cor. I5 84 : ayvatotav Bcov nvs CXOVCH.V. 



i88 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

What is meant is not decisively though this is also included a mere lack of 
acquaintance with God or uncertainty as to His nature or existence, nor is it 
merely a lack of knowledge or misunderstanding of God which is excusable and 
and can be set right by enlightenment and suitable instruction. As Paul tells us, 
he is speaking to the shame (ArtT/KwnJ) of the community in Corinth in which 
such dywoorwx is possible. And in order to overcome similar dywom'a amongst those 
around according to the will of God, Christians are not told in i Pet. 2 16 to under- 
take academic instruction, but simply to do good. What is meant by ayvwota 
is a suppression of the knowledge which has already been disclosed and com- 
menced to dawn in men. This suppression is startling in its inexplicable f actual- 
ity, for it is quite inexcusable. It is a " holding down " (icoT^etv) of the truth 
in 081^0 (Rom. i 18 ). The Gentiles are strikingly enough described as already 
yvdiref TOV 9e6v (Rom. i aof -) to the extent that God is undoubtedly present, 
perceptible, conceivable and therefore knowable to them in His works of creation. 
But of what avail is this ? As those who know in this sense they are in practice 
those who do not know, since they do not give God either glory or gratitude, 
but are vain in their imaginations (AoytopoQ, their foolish hearts are darkened, 
and professing to be wise they are fools. According to 2 Cor. io 4 there are 
strongholds (d^upco/Liara) of such imaginations, veritable high things (w/Kafiara), 
which exalt themselves against the knowledge of God and which have to be 
pulled down if matters are to be brought to a successful issue. According to 
Rom. io w - the Jews are guilty of similar self-exaltation when they do not recognise 
the judicial decision made and revealed by God Himself. It is manifest and known 
in virtue of the present self-declaration of the history of Israel and the apostolic 
witness to them concerning the history of Jesus Christ. But of what avail is 
this when they will not submit to it but seek their own righteousness instead of 
that revealed and promised by God ? A puzzling knowledge which is also 
ignorance 1 Similarly, the " savour " of the knowledge of Christ which God 
spreads in every place by the witness of the apostles can be to some " the savour 
of death unto death/' and to others " the savour of life unto life " (2 Cor. 2 14f ). 
It can be the former, not regularly, but irregularly and per nefas, in virtue of 
the perversity of those who share this knowledge. This was the complaint 
against the lawyers of Israel in Lu. ii 81 : "Ye have taken away the key of 
knowledge (which is obviously in your hands) : ye entered not in yourselves, 
and them that were entering in ye hindered." The reason why Jesus wept over 
Jerusalem in Lu. ig 411 - was because, when He approached it, it did not know 
ra irpos eirfvijv, because it was hid from its eyes that the kingdom of God had 
drawn near. In the power of its own wisdom the world has not known the wisdom 
of God (i Cor. i 21 ). If it and its rulers had known Him, " they would not have 
crucified the Lord of glory " (i Cor. 2 8 ). Hence it is no mere rhetorical device 
that Paul so often uses expressions like " Know ye not ? " or "I do not will 
that ye should be ignorant." His intention is to show that both as a whole and 
in detail his communities are continually threatened by the possibility of this 
kind of ignorance. 

It is quite natural and will serve as an illustration which intensifies the 
mystery to think at this point of the parable of the Sower (Mt. i3 8 ' 8 ) and its 
interpretation (w. 18-23). The interrelationship of the two passages is doubtful. 
It may be that the interpretation, like that of the Wheat and the Tares in vv. 
37-43, belongs to a later stratum of the tradition. In favour of this view, it 
may be argued that it one-sidedly rivets our attention on only one of the many 
elements in the rich content of the parable, namely, the difference in the soils on 
which the good seed falls, this being allegorically related to the different reception 
which the Word has among different listeners. On the other hand, reflection 
on this side of the matter is not only not forbidden by the parable itself, but 
seriously occasioned by its nature and wording. And what the interpretation 
offers in this respect must surely be regarded as a very old, indeed, as the first 



3. Jesus is Victor 189 

commentary on the parable. It certainly does not say anything which might 
not be intended by the parable itself. And quite apart from this, it certainly 
does say one thing which is quite definitely intended by the parable. The parable 
speaks (i) of the proclamation of the Word, (2) of the hearers of the Word, and 
(3) of the differentiation between them. 

The Word goes out (i) as the one message and summons to all men. As is 
rightly observed in v. 19, it is the Xoyos fiaatXelas, i.e. and here the most literal 
translation is also the most meaningful the Word in which the imminent king- 
dom of heaven declares and proclaims itself to man. All those to whom it comes 
hear exactly the same as others. No matter who the hearers are, the enlightening 
and renewing power of this Word, the fruitfulness inherent in this seed, is the 
same : quia hominum vitio et pravitate non enpitur verbo sua natura, quin seminis 
vim retineat (Calvin, C.R., 45, 364). Nor is it the case that it does not reach all, 
or reach them with the same seriousness. Calvin is again right to point out that 
neither in the parable nor the interpretation is there any reference to those who 
reject the Word from the very first, but only to those in quibus aliqua videtur 
esse doctlttas , and that in v. 19 it is called that which is sown " in the heart." 
Dei enim respectu seminatur in cordibus verbum, not then as a Word which has 
merely an external influence, but as one which effects man internally. The 
interest of the passage is in the reception which the full and true and living and 
effective Word of God finds in its hearers. 

But it is also concerned (2) with the hearers of the Word proclaimed, and 
with the One who proclaims it, the Sower who sows the seed. For this Sower 
there are not four different fields in which to sow but only one. The statement 
in the interpretation of the parable of the Wheat and the Tares may be equally 
well applied in this case too : " The field is the world " (v. 38). To the cosmos 
as such, and to all its representatives, the kingdom self-declared and proclaimed 
within it is new and strange. But the Word of the kingdom is directed to it, 
and to all its representatives, with the same intention and hope in the case of all 
its hearers To the one field traversed by the Sower belong alike the path, the 
stony ground, the thorny ground, and the good ground. -Men coflfft ltn t-q a 
Jiomogeneous community in relation to -the Word of the -kingdom addressed to 
them They are OLKOVOVTCS and therefore they are foreseen, foreordained and able 
to be those who receive and accept the Word, who are begotten again of the Word 
of truth (Jas i 18 ), who are doers of the Word (Jas i 12 ). All of them are described 
as such in the interpretation, in conformity with the parable itself. " God our 
Saviour . . . will have all men to be saved, and (therefore) to come unto the 
knowledge of the truth " (i Tim. 2 4 ). 

We now come (3) to the point of the parable. If the truth, the Word of the 
kingdom, the kingdom itself, is so new and strange to the world and all men, so 
is what follows, i e , the inner difference revealed in the one field, from the stand- 
point of the Word and the One who speaks it. In some cases the seed is hindered 
from growing and is thus sown in vain, but in others it brings forth fruit and 
thus justifies the work of the Sower. There is thus a division within the one 
world to which the Word of the kingdom is spoken and among the men to whom 
it is declared without distinction. Yet according to the tenor of the passage, 
the account of this division ought to startle us as a new and sinister factor. It 
cannot be taken for granted. On the contrary, it has no real place in the story. 
It is the very thing which ought not to happen. Indeed, it is the thing which 
is both objectively and subjectively impossible. It is the possibility which from 
the standpoint of the Sower and the seed is excluded and impossible. The only 
trouble is that it is a reality. The general O.KOVCIV is followed by a certain otWi/at, 
but not by one which it seems may be expected in every part of the field. This 
latter verb is to be rendered as strongly as possible, almost in the sense of in- 
telligere. " Understand " does not suffice. Everywhere there is understanding 
of what is heard according to the context : even where the Word immediately 



igo 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

vanishes as though it had never been, as the seed which falls on the harder soil 
of the beaten path is picked up by the birds ; but more particularly where it 
falls and springs up and flourishes on the ground which is stony or thorny but 
still intrinsically receptive. Of all the hearers to whom it comes we may say 
that they have understanding. But in the aiWvcu (v. 23) which takes place 
where the seed falls on good ground, growing unhindered to maturity and bring- 
ing forth fruit, we have to do with something more than mere understanding. 
What we have here is reception, acceptance, appropriation and comprehension. 
It is true inner apperception of the Word heard and understood. It is knowledge 
which corresponds to the Word and in which the hearer is begotten of the Word 
and becomes a doer. This knowledge is the normal case correlative to its pro- 
clamation and to the determination of the hearer. It is to this that the conclusion 
of the parable refers (v. 8) when it says that the seed " brought forth fruit, some 
an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold." It is to be noted that this 
conclusion is simply repeated and not expounded in the interpretation (v. 23), 
and it would be foreign to the purpose of the parable to try to explain the new 
differentiation which it introduces. The emphasis lies on the fact that beyond 
mere hearing and understanding we here have true knowledge, i.e., the knowledge 
which appropriates and does. As in the parable of the pounds, we have a quanti- 
tatively different but qualitatively identical alteration corresponding to the 
nature of the Word no less than to the world situation created by its proclamation. 
It is the normal case that the seed should bear this fruit, that there should be 
this knowledge in the hearing and understanding of the Word. Yet the point 
of the parable does not he in the depiction of this normal case which is only the 
conclusion and in which reference is merely made to the " good ground " in 
indication of its presupposition The real point is to be found in the fact that 
the normal case is confronted by so many unforeseen and startling abnormal 
cases in which, contrary to every rule, intention and hope, this knowledge does 
not arise and the true and living and effective Word of the kingdom does not 
accomplish in the world that which it should accomplish in accordance with its 
nature and the world situation created by its proclamation. The differences 
between the wayside, the stony ground and the thorns certainly invite us to 
consider, as is done in the interpretation m vv. 18-23, tn e many different forms 
which the abnormal case usually assumes. On the one side, there is the man 
whose hardened self-will causes him to escape the Word immediately he has 
heard and understood it. Again, there is the man of cheap enthusiasm who 
thinks that he has grasped what he has not really grasped at all, as is revealed 
by the first serious opposition which arises. Again, there is the man who is 
decisively claimed by very different forces, amongst which the interpretation 
(v. 22) numbers not only carnal passions and ideological ties, but with great 
realism " the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches." We must all 
consider the different ways in which we, too, might become abnormal cases. In 
itself, the differentiation of these possibilities is simply an indication of the 
terribly wide variety in which they may crowd in upon us, so that in face of 
them the normal case seems almost to be a fortunate exception to the general 
rule. 

There is no doubt that in all these cases there is depicted the great threat to 
which the work of the Sower is exposed. It might seem that the result of this 
work is inevitable. Is not the world in which it takes place the world which is 
known by God ? Has it any option but to know the One by whom it is known ? 
Yet the fact remains and it must be recognised as a fact that in large measure 
it seems to have a very different option, namely, the sinister possibility of the 
dyvatoia rov Ocov in whose actualisation the exception threatens to become the 
rule, and the rule the exception. It may well be " eternally settled " that the 
Sower should not go forth to sow in vain, that Jesus should be Victor. Yet in 
face of this threat to His work, this is by no means self-evident. It has to take 



3- Jesus is Victor 191 

place that He conquers. The enemy who aims at a different result, who is also 
intent to triumph, is truly present in all the absurdity of his nature and existence. 
It has to happen that he is driven from the field. Precisely from this standpoint 
the parable throws light on the historicity of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. 

We have now established two preliminary points. The first is 
that the prophecy of Jesus Christ is the history in which He establishes 
in the world reconciled by Him to God knowledge of Himself, and 
therefore of the saving action which He has accomplished toward it, 
of the kingdom of God which has drawn near in and with His exist- 
ence, of its own alteration as effected by Him. The second is that the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ is the history in which, as He establishes 
this knowledge, He meets the meaningless and unfounded opposition 
of this world, the absurd fact of ignorance of Himself, of His action, 
of the kingdom of God, of the accomplished alteration of the whole 
world situation. In both cases, namely, in the work of Jesus Christ 
as the living Word of the living God on the one side, and in the work 
of its hampering and questioning on the other, we have an event. It 
may thus be seen already in relation to both these preliminary points 
that in the prophecy of Jesus Christ we are dealing in a most emphatic 
way with the historicity of the atonement in general and as such. 

This historicity of the atonement, and particularly of the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ, emerges even more definitely (3) in the fact that it 
impinges upon and includes within itself all history, the history of 
each and every man, and concretely in the fact that it involves all 
world history, and each and every man, in the antithesis of knowing 
and not knowing. As reconciliation is reconciliation of the world, of 
all men, it applies to the whole world, to all men, whether in terms of 
its self-declaration to all in Jesus Christ, or in terms of its hindering 
and questioning by the opposition and obstruction offered to Him as 
the Word of God. That it applies to all in this twofold sense means 
that as the light of life shines in the darkness, the world and all men 
come within the reach of its beams, but as it shines in the darkness, 
the world and all men are still in the sphere of darkness. As a creature 
of the God and a fellow of the man who speaks, every man, whether 
he realises it or not, is actually and objectively confronted by the 
proclamation of Jesus Christ, yet also by the limitation of this divine 
and human Word by the contradiction which encounters it from the 
abyss of nothingness. But " confronted " is too weak a word in this 
connexion. The proclamation of Jesus Christ and its dreadful limita- 
tion are together the history which embraces and comprises, and thus 
controls and determines, the history of the world and the history of 
each and every man. Man is not unaffected by the fact that he finds 
himself in the sphere both of light and of darkness. The whole world 
and each and every man is marked and determined in the light of this 
twofold confrontation. Man is, and can only be, that which he is 
with Jesus Christ, and with the adversary of Jesus Christ. Whether 



192 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

he realises it or not, he is set in this antithesis. He does not exist 
without belonging to Jesus Christ, and therefore without having to do 
with His adversary ; without sharing in the knowledge established 
by His Word, but also without being bound to the ignorance estab- 
lished in this limitation of His Word. 

There are, of course, important differences. Within the world 
which the Word of God, declared once and for all, has set in this anti- 
thesis, and which is therefore determined by this antithesis, there are 
the community and the non-community, Christians and non-Christians, 
believers and unbelievers, confessors and deniers of the truth. 
Again, there is a sleeping knowledge, unborn, withheld and appar- 
ently only virtual, and in face of it a wakeful, living, and apparently 
unbound and totally dominant ignorance. Again, and conversely, 
there is an actual, unmistakeably wakeful and living, and apparently 
cheerful and triumphant knowledge, and in face of it an apparently 
dispersing ignorance active only as a dwindling remnant. Yet as 
between the community and Christians on the one side, and the rest 
of the world on the other, there is a distinct yet not an absolute but 
only a fluid and changing frontier, which thus holds out a constant 
threat to Christians but a constant hope to non-Christians, so those who 
know and those who do not know, for all the important differences 
between them, are ultimately or primarily, i.e., in relation to the 
sovereign revelation of the Word, in exactly the same position and 
under the same determination. That is to say, in very different re- 
lationships, they are all both those who know and those who do not 
know, all being determined by the great antithesis that the light shines, 
but that it shines in the darkness. If the Word of God spoken in Jesus 
Christ had completely destroyed the opposition and contradiction 
which withstands it ; if it were thus no longer spoken in this anti- 
thesis, this would necessarily mean that we should all be those who 
know, and nothing more. Conversely, if the opposition and contra- 
diction were a match for, or even superior to, the Word spoken in 
Jesus Christ, this would mean that we should all be those who do not 
know, and nothing more. But neither of these assumptions is valid. 
There is no opposition or contradiction which is superior to the Word 
of God, or even a match for it. Yet the Word of God has not so far 
removed the hindrance and questioning, but is still spoken in this 
antithesis. It thus follows that, since it is the Word of God (spoken 
in this hindrance and questioning), which controls and determines the 
situation of all men, we may all be said to be, in very different relation- 
ships, both those who know and those who do not, those who do not 
and those who do. The only serious distinction between us men is 
that in the one case, as among believing Christians gathered in the 
community, it is knowledge which is predominant and ignorance is 
giving ground, whereas in the other, as among the theoretical and 
practical ungodly or idolatrous of every type, it is ignorance which is 



3. Jesus is Victor 193 

predominant and knowledge is held in check. In neither case, how- 
ever, can it be said that there is wholly lacking that which is rightly 
or wrongly rejected, denied, suppressed or concealed, whether an 
alien ignorance in Christians or in the rest a suppressed yet dawning 
knowledge established objectively in the divine revelation. On the 
contrary, this other element is always vocal and active, always asserts 
itself, and always plays a significant and distinctive role in their 
existence. Within and among us men there is no such thing as either 
an angelic and therefore exclusive knowledge or a devilish and there- 
fore exclusive ignorance. As those who know, we always exist in 
face of the abnormal and sinister possibility of ignorance, and as those 
who do not, in face of the normal and bright, yet not completely lack- 
ing, but present possibility of knowledge. We exist under the threat 
of the one possibility and the promise of the other. We are warned 
against seizing the one and summoned to seize the other. We exist 
in this antithesis. And we do so because the prophecy of Jesus Christ 
is the history in which our history is comprised and by which it is 
marked and determined. Its fulfilment as the shining of light in the 
darkness, but also its limitation as the light shining in the darkness, 
is the law under which our history, the history of the world and of 
each and every man, necessarily stands and which it has no choice 
but to follow. As the prophecy of Jesus Christ is historical in this 
concrete sense, so is human existence in the same concrete sense. The 
prophecy of Jesus Christ gives us a part in the existence in which it 
takes place itself, and in so doing it palpably displays its own concrete 
historicity. 

In this exposition we have in view the two lines which characterise the 
structure of the biblical witness both m the Old Testament and the New. 

On the one side, our concern is with the assumptions made in both the pro- 
phetic and the apostolic proclamation with respect to the hearers and readers 
Who are the people who are addressed by the authors of the Bible and from whom 
an understanding of what is said is expected ? In the Old Testament it is obviously 
members of the national community of Israel who are to be told what is good, 
and what Yahweh requires of them (Mic. 6 s ), by means of the narration, and the 
reflective and even poetic description and interpretation, of their own history 
as established by Yahweh's election and calling and constituted by His acts of 
grace and judgment In the New Testament it is the members of the community 
of Jesus Christ to whom He is present and revealed as their Lord and Head, 
living in virtue of His resurrection and reigning and ruling at the right hand of 
the Father yet also among them in the power of His Spirit, and to whom He 
is now " set forth " (Gal 3 1 ) and brought to remembrance by these witnesses 
in the accounts of His words and deeds, His death and passion, and in the 
corresponding exhortation regarding the significance of His existence for theirs. 
Behind Israelites and Christians, however, there also stand in a more distant 
circle the men of the surrounding world of the nations to whom it is the meaning 
and ordination of the narrower circle of those first addressed in the biblical 
testimony to be witnesses of what has been said to them. Obviously, then, the 
assumption of the prophetic and apostolic address to all these men is twofold. 
In both cases it is assumed (T) that they can, and normally must, hear and 
C.D. IV.-III.-I. 7 



194 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

understand and accept what is said to them, not because they have any capacity 
or disposition to do so, but because the attested truth of the history of Israel 
and of Christ is the truth of their own most proper reality, and they thus come 
from the place to which they are directed by the prophets and apostles. They 
have no pre-eminence, but they still have their origin in the election and calling 
of God, in the acts of grace and judgment which He has done for and to and among 
them. What is said to them verbally or in writing is simply an appeal to the 
knowledge already established in and with the fact of their specific existence, 
a recollection of what is recognised in and with their election and calling and 
the ensuing divine acts of salvation The covenant made, the life manifested 
among them, the accomplished reconciliation, has spoken, and continually 
speaks, its Word to them even before it is attested by the prophets and apostles. 
We recall Ro i5 14 : "I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren, that ye 
also are full of ayaBoavvr) , filled with all knowledge, able to admonish one another." 
We also remember i Jn. 2 27 : "Ye need not that any man teach you . . . even 
as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him " These sayings are not in any 
sense ironical. What the witnesses of Yahweh and Jesus Christ have to say 
can only be an appeal to what their hearers and readers already know directly 
through the One of whom the witnesses speak But it is also assumed (2) that 
those who are addressed by the witnesses need to be reminded and therefore 
need this witness, not merely occasionally, but seriously and decisively. The 
Word of Yahweh in His acts may be loud and clear in Israel, yet this national 
community needs prophets, historians, psalmists and wise men to expound and 
emphasise it The community may be established and continually upheld by 
the Word of Jesus Christ Himself, yet in the same sense it needs apostles and 
evangelists. The time of salvation announced in Jer 31", when " they shall 
teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, 
Know the Lord . for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the 
greatest of them " this time has secretly dawned in the history of Israel and 
the history of Jesus Christ, but it has not yet come openly or in such a way that 
there is in fact no further need of a " Know the Lord " There is a real knowledge 
established in the power of the great acts of God and the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ. Yet in the New Testament no less than the Old (even m Romans and i 
John), it is strangely but undeniably accompanied by an ignorance which is 
potent even within the community of the elect and called and therefore of those 
who are solidly enough instructed by the acts of God Neither the prophets 
nor the apostles fear nor respect this fact. Yet they do not ignore it. They 
know how chronically and acutely dangerous it is They know that it must be 
destroyed. They thus reveal it They attack it They treat it as a serious 
enemy. There are no writings in either the Old Testament or the New in which 
the authors do not reckon seriously with this opponent : not so seriously as 
with the reality whose truth they have to proclaim , yet with the seriousness 
appropriate to it. It is because of it, and to resist it, that they are empowered 
and commissioned by God to speak their word In relation to Jesus Christ 
Himself, in the hearing of His prophecy, and therefore on the assumption that 
knowledge is already established in and among their hearers and readers, this 
word cannot fail to be one of pure and consistent grace. Yet in relation to the 
opposition and contradiction active among their hearers and readers, and there- 
fore in relation to their ignorance, it must necessarily assume the pure and 
consistent form of a word of admonition, warning, accusation, invective and 
threat, i.e., the form of the Law as that of the Gospel These are the two assump- 
tions made in the biblical witness in respect of its hearers and readers. And it 
hardly needs to be said that the same assumptions apply whore in the fulfilment 
of the determination of the inner circle this witness moves into the outer circles 
of the nations which in the first instance are envisaged only indirectly in the 
writings of the Old and New Testaments. Here, too, we have to reckon both 



3. Jesus is Victor 195 

with the prophecy of Jesus Christ and with the opposition and obstruction which 
it meets. Men are addressed by the biblical witness both as those who already 
know (in virtue of the power of the Word of Jesus Christ) and as those who do 
not yet know (in virtue of this fatal counter-action) . 

On the other side, following the second of the two relevant lines which 
characterise the structure of the biblical witness, our concern is with the basis of 
this twofold address. It does not rest on any remarkably persistent caprice on 
the part of the witnesses. They have not elected of themselves to speak to 
others, and therefore to do so in this twofold way. Nor does its basis lie in their 
better or worse experiences with those to whom they turn. They have such 
experiences. But how could such experiences, which are only relatively norma- 
tive, give them the right or the freedom to address others so seriously and 
decisively both as those who know and those who do not ? It is in relation to 
the object and content of their witness, and under its compelling direction, that 
they must see and address them in this way. For all of them it is a matter of the 
light, truth and revelation of God, of service to His Word, and therefore of the 
proclamation of the covenant, and of the great acts of God which have taken 
place for its establishment, execution and fulfilment. It is in the service of the 
divine Word concerning the divine work that they can never see or claim those 
to whom they turn with sufficient definiteness, seriousness or joy as those for 
whom and to whom this work has been done and this Word is spoken. Again, 
as loyal servants of this Word of God they cannot overlook or neglect its concrete 
form, namely, that though it was and is spoken with divine glory, majesty, 
authority and effectiveness, it is not spoken in a vacuum, but to the world and 
men, and therefore not without being exposed to assault, but as a Word which 
is continually contested in view of the blindness and deafness of man, and which 
continually strives against this blindness and deafness. They have received 
it in this character, and if they really want to serve it they take it seriously in 
this character. It is from this that there derives the earlier assumption with 
which they approach men as witnesses of the Word of God. They receive it as 
the Word of power which upholds all things (Heb. i 8 ). How else, then, can they 
see and address men but as those who are reached and upheld by its power, and 
who therefore know ? But they receive it also as the Word of the One " who 
endured such contradiction of sinners against himself" (Heb. 12*). How else, 
then, can they see them but as those who are still imprisoned and closed against 
it, and who therefore do not know ? The realism with which God expresses 
Himself and His work consists in the fact that His Word is gloriously directed 
above all norms and therefore to sinful man resisting His glory. And the biblical 
witnesses do justice to this realism by understanding those to whom they have 
to address this Word under this double aspect and therefore both as those who 
know and those who do not, by recognising that their existence is existence 
in this antithesis, and by addressing them accordingly. Does this mean that 
we must apply to them the term " dialectic " ? The answer is a decided negative 
if by " dialectic " we mean thinking in contradiction or in reconciliation of two 
principles. But the term might be used if what we have in mind is the alternation 
of divine speech and human answer indubitably envisaged by the Old and New 
Testament witnesses. Yet even so this does not bring out the true compulsion 
under which they stand in seeing and describing human existence under this 
twofold aspect. Hence it is better to abandon the term " dialectic " and to 
replace it quite simply by that of history. In itself and as such the Word of God 
is historical. It takes place in glory, but also in conflict with the opposition and 
contradiction of the world before it is heard in the world and there is converse 
between God and man. It is because the biblical witnesses receive and must 
attest it in its own historical concreteness that they must understand and address 
the existence of the men to whom they speak, not dialectically, but in the 
historical concreteness corresponding to that of the Word of God itself, so that 



196 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

they are seen to be both those who already know and those who do not yet know, 
and their existence is regarded as existence in this antithesis, existence on the 
way characterised by this antithesis. 

This feature in the structure of the biblical witness constitutes the back- 
ground against which our previous exposition is to be understood. 

It is obvious that the rise of this antithesis is not the final thing 
which takes place in the occurrence of the prophecy of Jesus Christ 
and the human knowledge which results from and corresponds to this 
prophecy. The antithesis can arise only to show that it has no solidity 
and therefore (4) to move to its overcoming. In the event of recon- 
ciliation as the restoration of peace between God and man there is no 
static counterpoise, vacillation or balance. Again, in the justification 
of man there is no immobile simul of the homo iustus and the homo 
peccator. In sanctification, too, there is no armistice between the 
being of the new man and that of the old. But the same is no less 
true when we come to the event of the revelation of this reality and the 
knowledge thus established by the Word of God. In accordance with 
its theme and content, it is a transition, turning and decision in a 
very definite direction, namely, in that of the consummation which is 
from the very first the meaning and purpose of its execution. It is 
certainly a history of battle. But as such it is a history of triumph. 
God is not God in vain. Nor is it in vain that the One who acts in 
this history and therefore conducts this war is the eternal Son of God. 
Nor is it in vain that as the Son of Man He is man exalted to fellow- 
ship with God. It is not in vain that He is the great Prophet, the 
living Word of the living God. The fact that He allows opposition 
does not mean that He accepts it. The fact that He attacks and defends 
does not mean that this exhausts His work, or that He will be con- 
tinually engaged in conflict. There can, of course, be no question of 
a merely temporary struggle, and certainly not of a final armistice or 
treaty with the adversary. He would not be the One He is if this 
were possible or even conceivable. We do not know Him if we con- 
sider such possibilities in relation to Him. Nor would His adversary, 
the opposition or contradiction which resists the omnipotent Word of 
God from the side of the world, be what it is if it could prevail or even 
maintain itself in this warfare. It is the sum of folly and futility that 
the world already reconciled with God continually resists the Word 
in which it is told the truth concerning itself. This folly and futility 
are very really and dreadfully present. Yet they have no true value 
or power. They cannot put in the field more than the reality and 
dread of a reactionary usurpation. This adversary has no power to 
triumph over the Word of God, or even to achieve equality with it, 
to oppose to it the law of a continuing resistance. " One little word 
can fell him/' He can only be felled and destroyed, even from the 
standpoint that he can never leave the Word of God alone, nor finally 
nor even temporarily make peace with it, but only constantly deny it. 



3. Jesus is Victor 197 

What we have in view, from both angles, is only his finite over- 
throw. Yet this is inevitable from the very start of the conflict, and 
is declared in the course of it. Complete and utter victory is with 
the Word of God. Its negation and denial will be completely and 
utterly eliminated. From the standpoint of the struggle itself, 
there will be the steady but relentless emergence and disclosure of 
the superiority of the one contestant and the inferiority of the 
other. 

Our reference is to Jesus, to His warfare and victory. Now in 
relation to Him, the situation in the sphere of knowledge on the part 
of those to whom His prophecy is addressed cannot be seen or under- 
stood in any other way than in terms of the antithesis between know- 
ledge and ignorance as played out in the world and human existence. 
Yet in this respect we have also to note and consider the fact that the 
occurrence of the prophecy of Jesus Christ includes and therefore 
dominates, marks and determines the history of the world and of 
each and every man. If we have a part in the problem of the Christ 
event, we also have a part in its solution in Him. Neither with sighing 
nor scorn, therefore, can we accept the idea of an equilibrium of our 
knowledge and ignorance, nor of an eternal conflict nor an armistice 
nor treaty between the two. What takes place in this antithesis and 
conflict is not any history. It is not any history of conflict, indefinite 
as to its meaning or issue. It is the history of the " good fight " in 
the sense of i Timothy 6 12 and 2 Timothy 4 7 , of the fight which is 
good because it is laid upon us by the model and example of Jesus 
Christ and is to be entered and waged in His discipleship, so that 
from the very outset it can be accepted and fought step by step with 
the promise and guarantee of victory. For in relation to Jesus Christ 
it has a definite telos and direction in which it cannot result in defeat 
or stalemate but only in the triumph of knowledge over ignorance. 
This means that the antithesis which determines the existence of man 
can be understood only dynamically and teleologically. Even as man 
knows, he does not know. In his very knowledge he is hindered and 
hampered by his ignorance. Yet in his ignorance he is visited, startled 
and set moving in the opposite direction by his dawning knowledge. 
Darkness still threatens his light. But with a far more serious threat, 
the light now threatens his darkness. This is our history as seen in 
the light of that of Jesus Christ. What we have in the antithesis is a 
" still " and " already," not the equivocal balance of a " partly- 
partly " or a " both-and." The movement is quite definitely from 
ignorance to knowledge. The conflict is still in full course, but already 
in the course of it there can be no doubt as to the outcome. Know- 
ledge and not ignorance is in process of gaining the upper hand. It 
is to knowledge that the future belongs. This is the human situation 
as determined by the prophecy of Jesus Christ under the sign Christus 
victor. 



198 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

The biblical background to this fourth and final element in our discussion 
may best be illustrated by the transformation of Saul of Tarsus, the Pharisee 
and persecutor, into Paul the apostle. In Acts no less than three express accounts 
are given of this event, and though they differ in details they agree in substance. 
In addition, it is often and very significantly mentioned, and briefly characterised, 
by Paul himself in his Epistles. It is usually called his conversion. This is a very 
fitting description so long as we remember all that is meant by the New Testament 
word fixTdvoia, and so long as we realise that what is envisaged is the total trans- 
formation which takes place with the rise of specific knowledge. What happened 
to this man was that now he could and should receive something which he had 
not previously been able or willing to receive, and that in this transition from 
non-reception to reception he became a new man and moved from an old way 
to a new. We have to consider this incident in the present context because in 
it there is unmistakeably revealed (i) the radical meaning of what is called 
knowledge in the Bible, (2) the historical character of this knowledge, and in 
particular (3) the teleological orientation of this history as we have just considered 
it. 

In all the passages in question all these three elements, and their indissoluble 
unity, are brought before us by the fact that the primary and proper subject 
of the event described in them is not the man of Tarsus but the man of Nazareth, 
the living Jesus who encounters him. It pleased God by His grace to reveal, 
not a truth, but His Son in me (Gal. i 1Bf ). "In the face of Jesus Christ " Paul 
knows the glory of God shining upon him (2 Cor. 4'). He appeared last of all 
to him (i Cor. 15") . It was Jesus the Lord whom he saw (i Cor. g 1 ). Jesus had 
pity on the one who persecuted Him (i Tim. i 18 ). It was He, Jesus of Nazareth, 
who met him in the way before Damascus (Ac. 22 8 ). He was made a witness of 
Jesus (Ac. 22 15 , 26 16 ), and immediately became His " slave " (Rom. i 1 ). We 
miss completely the import and meaning of these passages if, instead of referring 
them primarily and properly to this different Subject, to His appearance, speech 
and action, to what He does to Paul, we emphasise Paul's own experience and 
evolution and therefore regard Jesus only as a motive or exponent or cipher. 
As presented in all the texts, this is Paul's very personal history, but as such it 
has an " eccentric " character. It speaks of his decision, but this is a decision 
which can only follow that already made concerning him by Jesus. He knows 
only as one who is known by Him. This is why his knowledge has the power, 
not merely to give him new information, but radically to transform his life, 
himself. This is why his knowledge itself is genuine history, and especially 
history which is teleologically orientated, the history of warfare, history which 
from the very outset is victorious. The great event of this transformation can 
be understood only in relation to the One in face of whom, in the powers of whose 
invasion of the existence of Paul, it takes place according to the declaration and 
meaning of the texts. With constant attention to this centre which motivates 
and organises the event in its totality, and keeping as closely as possible to the 
statements of the texts themselves, we shall now attempt a brief analysis of this 
transformation. 

Its terminus a quo is the man Saul of Tarsus on this side of the transformation 
before Damascus, and on the threshold of the history which constitutes his 
knowledge of Jesus. The picture is not absolutely unequivocal. It cannot be. 
Yet there can be no doubt that his knowledge dawns in the powerful and dominant 
darkness of his ignorance. In a later passage (2 Cor. 4 6 ) Paul himself described 
the dawn of light in his heart in clear allusion to Gen. i 8 . The God " who 
commanded the light to shine out of darkness " (c* OKJTOVS) by His Word had 
spoken to him the same creative Word with the same effect. As in Rom. 7*-" 
he sees his justification begin in all the darkness of sin (cf. C.D., IV, i, p. 581 ff.), 
so he now sees his knowledge of Jesus Christ arise in the darkness of his ignor- 
ance. His history is particularly instructive in this regard because in his case 



3- Jesus is Victor 199 

we do not seem to have merely a common instance of darkness, but darkness 
in its supreme and at a first glance impenetrable form. The man who is now 
converted is not a worldling abandoned in his unbelief, or superficial belief, to 
his own lusts and passions. He is certainly not a godless man, or an open male- 
factor. From the human point of view, he seems to be in every way creditable. 
The justifiable pride of this earlier man is still clearly reflected in what he says 
of himself in Phil 3 B : " Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of 
the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews " ; and there can be no doubt 
that his attitude and conduct (avaarpoffi , Gal. i 18 ) accorded with the mode of 
Jewish life (cv '/ouScuo/wS) as then expected. In the righteousness of the Law 
he not only seemed to be but actually was " blameless " (Phil. 3*). In this 
respect he emulated most of his contemporaries of the same age. He was a 
strict Pharisee (Phil 3 8 ), a pupil of Gamaliel, " taught according to the perfect 
manner (Kara aKpifteiav) of the law of the fathers, and zealous toward God " 
(Ac. 22 s ). He thus deserved the praise which later he did not withhold from his 
own people even in its continued rejection of Jesus Christ (Rom io 2 ). Compared 
with heathenism and much secularised Judaism, should not this really be called 
light rather than darkness ? In what sense is this the work of ignorance ? In 
what sense is it the groping of a blind man on a way of destruction ? It is note- 
worthy that these passages do not include any criticism of Pharisaism, of its 
legalism, self-righteousness, pride, hypocrisy and human obstinacy, such as 
we have in Mt. 23, although this might have been apposite in a context like that 
of Gal i. They seem to have no interest in this, but press on to the statement 
that the man who trod this path became and was a persecutor of the community. 
The Epistles simply mention the fact (Gal. i 13 , i Cor. 15", Phil. 3 6 ), but m i Cor. 
15* it is added that because of it Paul is the least of the apostles and is not worthy 
to be called an apostle Even the more extended accounts of Acts are concerned 
only with this aspect Paul was present at the stoning of Stephen and gave his 
consent (Ac. 8 1 ). " Breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples 
of the Lord," he succeeded m expelling many of them from the Jewish synagogues 
(9 1 ) and in his fury " persecuted them even unto strange cities " (26 11 ). Finally, 
he secured a commission from the high-priests (g 1 , 22 6 , 26 12 ) to hunt out supporters 
of this " way," both men and women, even in distant Damascus, and to arrest 
them and bring them bound to Jerusalem This is what Paul has in mind when 
m i Tim i 13 he calls himself a " blasphemer " and " malefactor " No explicit 
mention is made in the texts of any particular motive for this line of action. No 
apparent necessity is seen for this in view of what precedes. Care must be taken 
not to try to make good the deficiency with such suggestions as that of a sadistic 
desire to persecute for its own sake, or the intolerance of a man who regards his 
own way as right and all others as pernicious, or the excited resistance of one 
who is not sure of his own ground and is thus driven to lash out all the more 
fiercely. There is no need of any such suggestions From what has been said, 
it is clear that this man is an opponent and persecutor of the community simply 
because (cf . Rom. 9 4f ) he stands for Israel, for its election and calling, for its 
mission to the world, for the course and development of its history as the 
history of salvation, and therefore for the faithfulness which is to be shown to 
God in the form of the faithfulness of Israel, its obedience to the Law which 
He has given it and its trust in the promises which He has made to it, in short, 
for faith in the Word of God which has been spoken and is to be received in and 
with its existence. He persecutes Christians because he sees that this economy 
of reconciliation and revelation is questioned, transcended, relativised and out- 
moded by them, i.e., by their proclamation of the person, work, lordship and 
authority of the Jesus of Nazareth rejected by Israel and delivered up by it 
to be crucified, by their declaration of His Messiahship, election, calling and 
commission, of His history as salvation history, of the demand to obey Him, to 
trust in the promise given in Him, to believe the Word spoken in His existence. 



2OO 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

He hates these men and seeks to destroy them and their witness because this 
witness tells him that the way of Israel which he is resolutely prepared to share 
and follow to the end is already at an end and therefore cannot be pursued 
further. He thus has a zeal for God, but, as he later says of the Jews who try 
to pursue this way, it is a zeal ou /car* eirlywooiv, in lack of understanding, or 
ignorance (Rom. io 2 ). What was it that he did not then know ? According to 
the same passage, it was the SiKaiocrwrj TOU 6eov, i.e., of God, of the God of Israel, 
of the God of the fathers, which does actually transcend and relativise and out- 
mode both his own righteousness and all the righteousness of Israel It was the 
sovereign sentence in which God fulfilled His covenant with Israel, and led the 
history of Israel to its goal, by Himself coming as the Deliverer of His people 
in the person of an Israelite, of a son of Abraham and David, by intervening 
powerfully on its behalf, by taking into His own hand the cause which its un- 
faithfulness had ruined. What he did not know was what took place for Israel 
in this way. What he did not know was the necessity of radical conversion 
thus laid upon Israel, its obligation to accept this divine decision which actually 
precludes all seeking of its own righteousness. What he did not know was the 
urgency of the command, in the best and only possible understanding of the 
Israehtish economy of reconciliation and revelation, to recognise in this decision 
of God His helping action and binding Word, and to give to it all the faith and 
obedience required of Israel. This was what Saul of Tarsus did not know. What 
it all amounts to is that he did not know Jesus. Looking back later (2 Cor. 5 lfl ), 
he said that he then knew Christ Kara odptca, i e., in a carnal way, as the author 
of a sect which despised all that was most holy, which destroyed the Israehtish 
economy of reconciliation and revelation, and which was thus guilty of serious 
apostasy from God. This was how he saw and understood Him from the stand- 
point of an unrepentant Israel ignorant of its own peace And seeing and under- 
standing Him in this way which necessarily made him a persecutor of the com- 
munity, he did not know Him at all. To know Christ in this or some other carnal 
way is not to know Him at all and thus necessarily to hate the witness con- 
cerning Him, and those who bear it. Saul of Tarsus did not know Him and 
therefore did not know the divine election resolved for the deliverance of Israel 
in the existence of this Israelite rejected by Israel. He could interpret His 
existence only to the detriment of Israel and therefore as hostile to God. This 
was the ignorance of his unbelief (i Tim. i 13 ) . It was in this darkness of ignorance 
that in his zeal for God he finally went rushing to Damascus 

Yet we have not correctly seen the terminus a quo of the event which awaited 
him on this journey if we try to see and understand him merely from the stand- 
point of the ignorance which then dominated and determined him According 
to Ac. 26 14 , Jesus Himself in the words which He addresses to this Saul makes 
mention of a Kcvrpov, a spur or goad, against which it is " hard " for him to kick 
like a wild horse. That he still resists even when it is made so hard shows that 
the Word has come to the Pharisees and other persecutors In the event, he 
will give up his resistance. It will be made not merely hard but impossible 
But it is already hard. To suspect that he suffers pangs of conscience does not 
help us much. It is perhaps better to start with the fact that in 2 Cor 5 18 , where 
Paul speaks of his earlier, carnal and empty knowledge of Christ, he does in fact 
speak of knowledge (yivwaKcw) . He can do this because even then, in that ignorant 
knowledge, he was in fact dealing objectively and factually with the living Lord 
Jesus Christ, with the SI/CCUOOWTJ TOU 6cov in all its scope and fulness , just as 
men generally are confronted objectively and factually with the works of creation 
in contemplation of which they have to do objectively and factually with the 
true God, so that to this extent they can be called yvbVw deov (Rom. i lw -), 
even though they are very far from the knowledge of God which is actually 
offered them. As the glory of the Creator does not begin to be glorious only 
when received by man, so with the glory of the Mediator. Hence the fact that 



3. Jesus is Victor 201 

Paul made nothing of the knowledge suggested to him, but regarded Jesus as a 
rightly rejected deceiver and treated His witnesses as worthy of condemnation, 
did not alter in the very slightest what Jesus was objectively and factually for 
him, namely, the Messiah who had now come, the true Son of God and Son of 
Man, the Inaugurator and Revealer of the dominion of God and of reconciliation 
between God and man. Nor did it alter in the very slightest what Christians 
were, namely, those sanctified by the Holy Spirit, the members of the body of 
which He was the Head, His obedient servants, whose offensive action was the 
only true and unequivocal well-doing and whose Word was the Word of truth 
affecting and binding Paul no less than others It did not alter in the very 
slightest the fact that in this community of His saints Jesus was already present 
to Saul in his ignorant zeal for God, was already objectively and factually know- 
able and even known by him, as the One He was and is and will be. To this 
extent his ignorance was not absolute. It was fully in control. But it was already 
limited by the knowledge which was already before him waiting for him to exercise 
it. The same result is reached if we consider Paul's then relation to what we 
have called the Israehtish economy of reconciliation and revelation He did not 
know this in resisting the knowledge that the history of Israel is the preparatory 
history of Jesus Christ, or, as he later put it (Rom i 1 *-), " the gospel which he had 
proclaimed afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures " He did not know that 
Christ was the telos of the Law, fulfilling the Abrahamic, Smaitic and Davidic 
covenant (Rom. io 4 ) He did not know the prerogatives of the Jews which 
were so familiar to and so highly valued by him, and which even later he recog- 
nised and praised so solemnly (Rom. 9 4 ' 6 ), Israel's adoption to sonship, the glory 
of God in its midst, the institutions of the covenant, the giving of the Law, the 
service of God, the promise, the fathers, the Messiah Himself who as man should 
be one of them, in short, the whole tradition in which he desired so consistently 
and passionately to live He knew it only as he did not know it. But what 
difference did his ignorance, his false view and understanding, make to the fact 
that objectively and factually the old covenant meant something very different 
from what he thought, and that in the most sacred things which he thought he 
had to defend against Christians and their supposed Christ he really had to do 
with Jesus of Nazareth as the true Christ, and in Him with the God of the covenant 
made with the fathers ? To adopt the words put in the mouth of Ananias in 
Ac. 22 14 : " The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know 
his will." What does his ignorance and its predominance signify in face of the 
fact that he is chosen to know by the God of his fathers, whom he served with so 
great a lack of understanding ? The reality in this respect, too, was the limitation 
of his overabounding ignorance by the knowledge objectively and factually 
secured to, though not yet exercised by him. And the words of Ac. 22 14 already 
point to the dimension to which Paul himself refers in Gal. i 15 when he speaks 
of himself as one who is separated by God and for God not merely before 
Damascus but from his mother's womb, this being the basis of his calling by grace 
on the Damascus road. In Ac. 9", too, he is called a oxevos cVcAoyifc. Elected 
by God long before the eighth day of his circumcision and therefore his entry 
into the tradition of Israel, and certainly long before his first encounter with 
Jesus in the members of His community, he was obviously known by God long 
before he had even the opportunity to exercise his own knowledge. In defiance 
of his ignorance, this knowledge was already offered in and with his creaturely 
existence as such. It was, as it were, laid in his very cradle. In virtue of his 
election he could only know. It is of all this that we are reminded by the jc&rpov 
against which the wild horse may lash out but by which it is restrained, so that 
it cannot lash out with any success. Its rider is in the saddle and cannot be 
thrown off. And in view of this whole aspect we must not form a one-sided 
picture of the terminus a quo of this great change in the life of Paul. The im- 
pression of the undisturbed dominion of his ignorance is opposed necessarily 



202 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

for otherwise it would not be Jesus Christ whom he did not know by that of 
the knowledge which he does not exercise, which he indeed repudiates, but which 
is powerful in virtue of its object, Jesus Chnst. Light was already near to the 
darkness of his way, and ready to shine out from within this darkness. 

The Damascus event is clearly that of the knowledge which Paul was shutting 
out on his way to the city and which he did not therefore exercise even though 
it was objectively and factually presented to him on every side. It was brought 
to him by the One whom he did not know on the way, and whom he would never 
have known of himself, as plainly indicated by both the Lucan and the Pauline 
references. In spite of the clear witness of the history of Israel and the Christian 
community, he would have gone storming along this way if on it there had not 
encountered him in person the One of whom he was elected to be a witness from 
his very birth and who had continually spoken to him in the tradition of the 
covenant with Israel which meant so much to him, namely, the Christ Jesus 
vainly attested to him by Christians. It was in the power of the self-witness of 
Jesus Christ that he passed from ignorance to knowledge. Jesus Himself met 
him before Damascus. This is the new factor in relation to everything that 
goes before. This is the decisive element in the story It was solely and simply 
in the power of the fact that Jesus met him that the event became that of his 
conversion. 

We shall first try to seize on the essential feature in the event. It consists 
in the fact that Jesus Himself makes Saul acquainted with Himself, enlightening 
him concerning Himself, namely, that He is the One for whom Saul is elected 
from his very birth, that He is the telos of the Law and covenant so vehemently 
asserted by Saul, that Saul has to do with Him in the witness of the Christians 
whom he persecutes. Formally this means that the Owner and Bearer of the 
name Jesus of Nazareth, whom formerly he viewed and understood and treated 
in a wholly inadequate and perverted way (Kara adpKa) as an object, now gave 
Himself to be perceived by him, in making Himself known, as acting Subject 
Did He give Himself to be viewed and understood and treated as such ? Yes, 
and to that extent He gave Himself to be perceived " objectively " as a distinct 
Other. But at the same time He made it quite impossible for Saul to view and 
understand and treat Him merely as an object and therefore at a safe distance 
from Saul as the acting subject. For He encountered Saul as Himself the Subject 
acting on him, thus giving Himself to be known in the biblical sense of the term 
It is He who, acting as Subject, enlightens Saul There is an encroachment by 
Him upon the human existence of Saul. Saul in his subjectivity can no longer 
maintain his distance in relation to the existence of this Other, this acting Subject 
Nor is this all. For the activity of this other Subject on him is to make Himself 
known to Saul, to give him enlightenment concerning Himself, to reveal Himself, 
His being, His competence and authority, His will and work. It is as the Lord 
that Jesus gives Himself to be known. And as He gives Himself to be known to 
him, it is as his Lord, as the One for whom he is elected from his very birth, who 
demands obedience in the Law which he so painfully keeps, and who is rightly 
and not wrongly attested as Israel's and therefore his own Messiah by the 
Christians whom he persecutes. But if it is this Subject who enlightens Saul 
concerning Himself as his Lord, this enlightenment, this encroachment upon 
Saul's existence, necessarily means that Saul must give place to this Other as 
his Lord, that he must accept His lordship, that he must end his headlong rush 
as a persecutor of this Subject, or more positively that he must bend to His rule, 
subject himself to His will and work, and thus in a right-about turn become a 
disciple, a witness and an apostle instead of an enemy of this Jesus. The call 
which overtakes him when this Jesus makes Himself known and he is brought 
from ignorance to knowledge is a summons to leave his former path and to enter 
and tread the new and opposite path which is indicated to him as one who now 
knows Jesus and which he cannot hesitate to take as such. Saul of Tarsus does 



3. Jesus is Victor 203 

not live any more. Christ lives in him. To the extent that he still lives, it is in 
faith in the Son of God (Gal 2 20 ). He is now free to obey this superior Other. He 
is the prisoner, the slave, the apostle of Jesus Christ. The whole process typifies 
the event designated in the New Testament by the terms yvwats and ^erdvota. 
It thus typifies the prophetic work of Jesus Christ We shall now turn to certain 
details which emerge in the accounts. 

The accounts of the incident given directly by Paul himself are marked by 
the terseness with which he sums up its decisive content by bringing the self- 
revelation of Jesus Christ into immediate connexion with his own institution 
to the apostolic office. It pleased God " to reveal his Son in me, that I might 
preach him among the heathen " (Gal. i 18 ). The Resurrected appeared to him, 
too, as the last of the apostles, and therefore quite plainly as one of them (i Cor. 
15*). " Am I not an apostle ? . . . Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? " 
(i Cor. 9 1 ). Christ had pity on His persecutor, treating him as a believer and 
taking him into His service (i Tim. i 12 '-). The Lucan accounts read like analyses 
of these compressed Pauline statements Yet even in the speech before Agnppa 
and Festus (Ac. 26 16f -) the calling to be an apostle is a constituent part of the 
message addressed by Jesus Himself to Saul in the encounter before Damascus, 
the intermediate role of Ananias being completely ignored : " For I have 
appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both 
of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will 
appear unto thee, delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles, unto 
whom now I send thee, to open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to 
light, and from the power of Satan unto God." And after repeating these words 
of the Lord Paul adds at once (v. 19 f ) : " Whereupon, O king Agnppa, I was 
not disobedient unto the heavenly vision : but shewed first unto them of 
Damascus, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, 
that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance." 
In this third account in Acts the appearance of Jesus, the calling of Saul as an 
apostle and the beginning of his work as such constitute an integrated whole 
which is presented rather more expressly than in the Pauline sayings already 
quoted. 

In the two first Lucan accounts, however, the happening clearly takes place 
in two acts The first is the direct encounter of Saul with Jesus Himself before 
Damascus The second is the indirect encounter with Jesus through the media- 
tion of the disciple Ananias The two acts are closely related, but each has its 
own emphasis and distinctive character 

What is first recorded in these accounts (Ac. 9 and 22) is obviously a develop- 
ment and description of what Paul himself denotes in i Cor. 15* by the phrase axf>dj] 
KOL^OI : " He was seen of me also " (as previously by Cephas, the five hundred, James 
and all the apostles) The use of the term "appearance " shows that even if 
the incident is a kind of postscript it is numbered with the events of the 40 days 
which are constitutive for the existence of the community. (The same term is 
also found in the summarised statements of Ac 26 lfl " ) Yet according to the 
accounts given here the structure of the incident is not quite the same as that 
of the appearances of the Resurrected in the Gospels For we cannot assume 
from these accounts that Saul saw Jesus of Nazareth in the same way as did the 
two on the road to Emmaus The decisive verses in all three versions tell us 
that what Saul saw (and those with him according to 22*) was a light suddenly 
shining upon him from heaven above the brightness of the noonday sun. And 
as he saw this he was stricken to the ground and blinded, so that he saw it no 
more. In 9 we are then told that for three days he neither ate nor drank. In 
seeing what he then saw, he seemed to have been struck down. He certainly 
saw the Just One (22 14 ) m His personal self -revelation. But in this first part of 
the event he saw Him only in His 8oa, in the strange and even frightening 
irresistibility of His majesty, m a way which could only annihilate all his previous 



204 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

vision and call m question all his earlier existence, so that when He gave Himself 
to be seen Saul was first reduced to impotence and totally routed from the field. 
Even that which he actually hears does not go beyond this according to the first 
two records. An anonymous voice puts to him the question : " Saul, Saul, 
why persecutest thou me ? " It discloses the emptiness and futility of all his 
previous action. As a question from heaven, it tells him that, checked by the 
Unknown whom he persecutes, he can no longer tread this persecuting way. 
But who is it that puts this question to him ? Who is it that checks him ? 
" Who art thou, Lord ? " It is evident that the One who has met him is a Lord 
clothed with supreme authority and acting with supreme power. But who is 
this " Lord," the Bearer of this authority and power. He does not know, and 
cannot imagine. He might be an unknown third party intervening between 
him and the Damascus Christians whom he was going to attack Perhaps it is 
a sheer mystery that he is confronted with the overwhelming fact that he can 
no longer be a persecutor. " Why persecutest thou me ? " But who is this 
One whom he persecutes ? He does not know. He has to be told : "I am Jesus, 
whom thou persecutest." But he has been persecuting the community. Yet 
now the One by whom he is unequivocally prevented from doing this any more 
tells him that he has been persecuting Himself, Jesus. This identification of 
the unknown Lord, however, does not wholly solve his problem. For the question 
remains what is to become of him. Perhaps he will be left lying where he has 
fallen. Perhaps he will be swept from the board like a captured chess-man. 
Perhaps he will be brushed aside as a troublesome obstacle by the Kynos Jesus 
whom he has tried to resist. Hence the further question (22 10 ) : " What shall 
I do, Lord ? " Even though he now knows with whom he has to do, he does not 
yet know what he is to do now that his previous work of persecution is brought 
to an end. Hence his knowledge of the One who restrains him increases rather 
than lessens his bewilderment. And according to 9* and 22 10 the final thing 
which Jesus tells him in this context of a blinding and shattering appearance of 
light is simply that he should arise and go to Damascus, where he will be told 
what to do. He is not rescued from all the consternation into which he has been 
plunged by what he has seen and heard Although " his eyes were opened, he 
saw no man." In this condition he was led by the hand and conducted into 
Damascus by his former companions. " And he was three days without sight, 
and neither did eat nor drink " (9 8f -) 

We must not be led astray by the negative aspect of this first picture It 
simply shows the reverse side of the highly positive event in which Jesus acts 
and reveals Himself as Victor in the life of this man. " As Victor " always 
means necessarily as the One who is absolutely superior to the ignorance by 
which he is ensnared, so that He can and does break its dominance with a word. 
The one who is smitten down, who lies blinded on the ground, who as an invalid 
is led forward to an unknown destiny still to be disclosed, who cannot even eat 
or drink, who is at the end of himself even though he still lives this man is no 
longer the ignorant Saul, the Pharisee filled with mistaken zeal for God, the 
rejecter of the witness concerning his own election and the covenant with Israel 
and the community, the persecutor of the community and therefore of its Lord 
and Head, to whom he still belongs. A total and effective No is said to this man. 
No future is left to him. An end is made of him He is driven from the field. 
Jesus has done this the One to whom he belongs. He has proved to be in- 
finitely stronger than this one who does not know Him , and He has shown 
this one to be infinitely weaker than Himself. With overwhelming and irresistible 
force His light has burst into the darkness of the opposition and contradiction 
which dominated him. Confronted with Him, the false and pretended light of 
his whole seeing, understanding, thinking and willing has been changed into 
darkness. No future has been left to him. Jesus, who has done this, has made 
Himself known to him as his superior Antagonist. He has told him that in this 



3. Jesus is Victor 205 

defeat and destruction he has to do with Him, that He is his Conqueror. Hence 
he does not merely know the Kvpdrrjs, the superiority, of this Other as such. 
Suffering defeat at His hands, he knows His name. He is the One against whom 
all his opposition and contradiction were directed. He is the One whom he 
persecuted As Jesus makes Himself known, he knows Him as the One whom 
he did not know but who has now radically set him aside as the one who did not 
know Him. He knows Him, not merely objectively as he did before, but sub- 
jectively. This is the positive element even in the first and negative picture. 
The picture is negative because in fact it reveals only the setting aside of the 
old and ignorant Saul, Jesus being the One who sets him aside and his knowledge 
of Jesus being knowledge of the victorious Jesus who does this. Yet, true though 
this is, the decisive thing is not that he knows Jesus in this way, but that in 
this way, in the No spoken to him, he does actually know Him, and that in and 
with Him he knows the Word of God which is already uttered to him in his own 
election, in the proclamation of the covenant with Israel, in the witness of the 
community, but which is rejected by him in his ignorance. The decisive thing is 
that the turning from ignorance to knowledge does actually take place as brought 
about by Jesus. As a turning away from ignorance it has to have the form which 
it is given here It must also be revealed as a turning to knowledge. It must 
have a positive continuation, expressing and clarifying itself in its consequences. 
But whatever may follow will do so in fulfilment of this turning. It will take 
place under the directive and power of the One who here causes it to take place 
as Saul's turning away from ignorance, as the negation of his negation. It is 
the One who here meets him on the way in his ignorance, and takes away from 
him any possible future in ignorance, who will determine his future as one who 
is engaged in the turning away from ignorance and therefore in the turning to 
knowledge, or rather who has already determined and ordered it as one who is 
no longer ignorant but knows 

Paul's entry into the future, determined and ordered with the dissipating of 
his past by the One v^ho removes it, is brought before us in the second part of 
the narratives in Ac. 9 and 22. The content of the shorter of these (22" " al ) is 
as follows Saul is now in Damascus He is there sought out by a Jewish 
Christian called Ananias At the word of this disciple his sight is restored. 
Ananias bears witness that what has happened was pre-determmed by the God 
of Israel Saul was to know the will of this God in contrast to his own, to see 
the Just One and to hear His voice, in order that he should be a witness of what 
he had seen and heard to all men Hence he must be baptised and wash away 
his sins, " calling on the name of the Lord." It is presupposed, though not 
explicitly stated, that Saul did this. He then returned to Jerusalem, but was 
at once told by J csus, who appeared to him v eKordcrci, that he should leave the 
city, since his witness would not be received there. " And he said unto me, 
Depart : for I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles." The account given 
in Q 10 ' 80 is the same in substance, but adds many details. An important point 
is that Ananias does not go to Saul on his own initiative, but only when the 
" Lord " has come to him in a vision (opa/ta) and commanded him to do so, in 
spite of his own reference to what Saul has done and to what he plans to do in 
Damascus, and therefore his own opposition to this command The information 
which causes him to go is as follows : " He is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear 
my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel." And Jesus 
will lead him along a path on which he will have to suffer many things, but for 
His name. Thus charged, Ananias goes to Saul, addresses him without further 
ado as " brother," and lays his hands upon him, that he should receive his sight 
and be filled with the Holy Spirit. As this takes place, Saul lets himself be 
baptised, takes food and is refreshed. Then after a few days, to the general 
astonishment, he begins to preach Jesus as the Son of God, and to show that He 
is the Messiah of Israel, in the synagogues of Damascus. Threatened by the 



206 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Jews, he leaves the city by the extraordinary method recounted in 2 Cor. n* a 
and goes to Jerusalem, where he is led to the apostles by Barnabas, begins to 
dispute with the Hellenistic Jews, is finally threatened here too with death, 
and thus returns to his own city of Tarsus. 

The first point of theological importance in these two accounts of the second 
act of this story of conversion is that, whereas in the first Saul apparently has 
to do directly and solely with Jesus, the community now enters into consideration 
in the person of Ananias. Jesus Himself in His closing words (g 8 ) promised it a 
definite function in the ordering of Saul's future If it is not expressly mentioned, 
this is certainly intended when he is told : "Go into the city, and it shall be 
told thee what thou must do." He is now to encounter the community in a very 
different way, with all the initiative on its side rather than his And it is as he 
does so, his past done away and his future opened up, that there is revealed to 
him what was previously hidden, namely, what is to become of him and what he 
is to do. It is by the community that there is shown to him the only possible 
way now that he is at an end of his former way. Through the word of Ananias 
he is told that the goal and purpose of his election is His calling to be a witness 
to the Jesus now seen and heard as his superior Antagonist And as the con- 
sequence rather than the presupposition of this commitment to service he is 
commanded to be baptised, the forgiveness of his sins and the fulness of the 
Holy Spirit are promised and imparted, and even physically he is given a fresh 
possibility of life with the restoration of his eyesight and liberty of nourishment. 
Yet Ananias has also to tell him (g 18 ) that his way will be one of suffering. In 
the third Lucan account no mention is made of this intervention of the com- 
munity in the story of his transformation (Ac 26), nor does it seem to be implied 
by the relevant Pauline passages Indeed, the record of this intervention seems 
to be in direct contradiction to the assurance of Paul that he was " an apostle, 
not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ (Gal i 1 ), and that he did not 
receive the Gospel which he preached of man, " neither was I taught it, but by 
the revelation of Jesus Christ " (i 12 ) Is this an instance of the so-called primitive 
Catholicism of Acts ? Yet we must not be over-hasty or over-confident in criticis- 
ing or correcting one Scripture by another in this regard Neither Ac. 9 nor 
Ac. 22 speaks of any instruction imparted to Saul by Ananias or the apostles 
m Jerusalem. Saul knows at first hand all that is necessary Known by Jesus 
Chnst, and taken by Him out of the darkness of his ignorance, he is also one 
who knows Him. He is taught by Jesus Himself concerning Himself as his Lord, 
concerning his election, concerning the meaning and telos of the covenant with 
Israel, and therefore concerning the truth of the Christian witness which he had 
hitherto scorned. Indeed, the texts themselves tell us that he can at once proceed 
to proclaim the Son of God and the Messiah, and thus practise his calling as soon 
as he has received it. This, too, he receives from Jesus Himself even in these 
passages. From this angle the noteworthy feature of these analyses of the event 
which he himself later described in so compressed a way is that he receives it 
from Jesus Himself through the mediation of His community. There is no 
question of anything in the nature of an ecclesiastical office Acts agrees with 
Galatians that the Jerusalem apostles played no part in the conversion and 
calling of Paul. It was only later (g 27 ) that he was introduced to them And as 
far as concerns Ananias, who bore the same name as the ill-fated Christian of 
5 lf - f he is certainly described in 22 12 as a man who according to the Jews in 
Damascus lived devoutly according to the Law, and in 9 10 rather more simply 
as a fjM0r)TJs or member of the community, but in this whole affair he does not 
act in virtue of any ecclesiastical dignity, but in virtue of a direct command of 
Jesus Himself. If it is asked how the community can and must act in the person 
of Ananias, a first and general consideration is that in the thinking of the New 
Testament there is no exclusive distinction or antithesis between Jesus Christ 
and His community, nor rigid either-or between His being and action and the 



3- Jesus is Victor 207 

being and action of the community. Notwithstanding the real difference, Jesus 
Christ and His cWAr/tna constitute an interrelated totality, so that He can represent 
His community and it can represent Him. The most obvious illustration in the 
three passages before us is to be found in the question of Jesus : " Saul, Saul, 
why persecutest thou me ? " In persecuting the community, he really persecutes 
Jesus as the Head of the community and therefore as the One who is not merely 
incidentally but primarily and properly affected. And it is as this Head of His 
community, representing His own, that He encounters Saul directly, enveloping 
him personally with the light of His glory, and speaking with him man to man. 
Invisibly, therefore, it is also the community itself which encounters, withstands 
and checks him. In the same relationship, he now has to do directly with the 
body and members of this Head in this matter of his apostolate, of his legitima- 
tion and authorisation for the new action deriving at once from this source. The 
relationship is the same. It is not reversible. The community does not now take 
the first place and Jesus the second. The word and act of Jesus are not as it 
were absorbed into those of the Church as in Catholicism falsely so-called. They 
do not disappear in those of the Church. Jesus is still the ruling Head and the 
Church His ministering body. But while this distinction remains, the fact is 
that Saul is now directed and introduced into the service of Christ through 
Ananias and therefore through the community. No early reader of Acts could 
possibly have imagined that on this account he did not receive his apostolate 
by Jesus Christ, but of and by man. For in the men whom he had encountered 
as a persecutor, and who now encountered him in this function, he was dealing 
with the " saints " of Jesus (g 13 ) and therefore with those who were directly 
His And above all the initiative of the community towards him was only 
secondarily its own and primarily and properly that of Jesus Himself. This is 
the explanation in 9 lof of the account in 22 12f - which is itself quite unambiguous 
in spite of its brevity Ananias does not act arbitrarily or autonomously. He 
goes to Saul on receiving from Jesus Himself a direction which in the first instance 
he resists. What he says is according to the instructions of Jesus and on the 
basis of, and with respect to, His primacy. After executing his important mission, 
he fades out of the picture and is never again mentioned either in Acts or in the 
rest of the New Testament Obviously it is only in this ministering function that 
the body and members can represent their Head or the community its Lord. 
But in this function they can and must do so. Even when the community comes 
on the scene, Jesus Himself is no less the acting Subject than in the first act where 
He alone was present It is He and not Ananias who converts Saul in this positive 
aspect as well It is He who orders his future and calls him to be an apostle 
and therefore a Christian, to be baptised, to receive the remission of sins, and 
to be filled with the Holy Spirit Ananias, and in him the community, merely 
lays before Saul what Jesus wants with him and of him, pointing him to Jesus 
as his future But the community has to come on the scene at this point and 
with this function, laying all this before him. Just as it was the community 
which in Christ's stead suffered under his persecution now concluded, so it is 
the community which, again in Christ's stead, points and introduces him to the 
service of Christ And since Saul, in accepting this service, accepted for Christ's 
sake full responsibility in relation to the community already engaged in it, for 
Christ's sake, too, the community must accept full responsibility for his service. 
This is what it did in the person of Ananias. The Lord who showed Himself as 
such to Saul, and whom Saul recognised as such, was also the Lord of the com- 
munity. On the way on which he was now set, therefore, Saul could not help 
coming up at once against the community and recognising himself as a member 
and brother And as the community saw him take this step on the basis of the 
self-demonstration of the One who was its Lord too, it had to recognise his gift 
and commission as those of a brother, and thus to summon him to baptism and 
to the promise of the remission of sins and the Holy Spint. This is what Ananias 



208 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

did, not on his own account, but at the direct command of Jesus. The one who 
in his ignorance had been against the community and thus against Jesus could 
now be the new man he was in his knowledge only in and with the community, 
for the community, and in this way for Jesus. This is what we are told in Ac. 9 
and 22. Paul himself would have been the very last to reject this explanation 
of the short formulae in which he describes his own conversion. 

It is obvious, however, that, important though this consideration of the 
mode of the ordering of his future way may be, it is only a side-issue in the 
passages (Ac. 9 and 22) upon which it is based. The really decisive thing which 
we learn from these passages, as from Ac. 26 and Paul's own statements, concerns 
the content of this order. This consists in the fact that the man of God who is 
" delivered from the power of darkness " and " translated into the kingdom of 
his dear Son " (Col. i 18 ), is immediately claimed and set to work in the Siaicovia 
of this kingdom (i Tim. i la ). We are told in Ac. 9 19f - how promptly he began to 
exercise this ministry. The vacuum which opened up at the end of the first act 
of the drama was filled with astonishing speed Indeed, it was filled immediately. 
He had been decisively checked in his previous activity as a persecutor of Jesus 
only in order that he should be no less decisively enlightened, empowered and 
liberated for his new activity as a witness and preacher of Jesus. Of what avail 
would it be to suppress his dominant ignorance if it were not at once replaced 
by dominant knowledge ? 'Ayvwaia can be truly and effectively suppressed only 
by yvwais, blasphemy only by praise As we are perhaps shown by the saying 
in Mk 9 40 , those who are restrained by Jesus Himself and can no longer be against 
Him can only be for Him, and as they were wholly against Him so now they 
cannot but be wholly for Him. The one who can no longer be a persecutor has 
no option but to be an apostle. This is what is represented in Ac 9 and 22 as 
the second act of the drama. Nor can it be merely literary pretension or 
catechetical requirement which stimulates this narrative exposition of what 
Paul himself says so succinctly. What is described is the transition to dominant 
knowledge, the rise of the new being of Saul for Jesus, his institution as an apostle. 
It is described as a special act in which Jesus as the all-dominating Subject 
speaks a new Word not yet uttered in the first act. It is quite obvious that 
what we have here is the result of what took place before, the reverse side of the 
page on the first side of which what took place before is written Yet it is also 
clear that in this result, in the turning of this page, we do not have the automatic 
and inevitable functioning of a mechanism The positive consequence was not 
contained in the negative presupposition in such a way that it must now proceed 
necessarily and as a matter of course. The presupposition did not have to have 
this consequence. Saul might have lam blinded where he was, or have been 
swept aside as the wreckage which he was at the end of the first act. A second 
act this second act did not have to follow the first. What we have here is 
history in which both the presupposition and the consequence, both the passing 
of the ignorance of Saul and the rise of the knowledge of Paul, are the work of 
the free act of the all-dominating Subject, of the Kynos Jesus. It is in this 
Kynos, in His will, in His glory, in His prophecy, and not in any inner and 
autonomous causality, that this history has its continuity. It is one history in 
its two acts as and because it is human history in participation in His history, 
taking place in consequence of His decisions and words. Paul himself says 
that he is what he is by the grace of God (i Cor. i5 9f -)> and in relation to the place 
from which he derives he thinks himself, yet cannot think himself, constantly 
unworthy to be called an apostle It is the free and gracious character of the 
transition to this status which is emphasised by the presentation in Acts with 
its division into two acts. Grace and apostleship were later for Paul himself 
(Rom. i 5 ) synonymous descriptions of what he had received from Jesus Christ. 

But the apostolic office into which Paul is directed and instituted by Jesus, 
not self-evidently nor automatically, but in a new and free act of grace, yet 



3. Jesus is Victor 209 

immediately and with unassailable factuality and irresistible effectiveness, 
consists in the fact, as he himself sees and understands it, that he is made a 
witness of Jesus (22", 26"). As such he is sent to all men (22") with the task 
of beanng His name to all. He is thus enabled and commissioned to say and 
prove to the Jews, in exposition of their own book, the Old Testament, that He 
is the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel (g M > "). And then when he is rejected 
and threatened by the Jews, who are foremost in making his path one of suffering, 
he can go to the Gentiles (22") that their eyes should be opened, that they should 
be brought out of darkness to light, that they should be delivered from the 
power of Satan to God, that they should come to faith in Jesus Christ, to the 
remission of their sins, and to participation in the inheritance promised to the 
sanctified of God (26). If the path to be trodden by the witness who is thus 
empowered and sent out is to be a path of suffering (9 16 ), he is yet promised 
that the One who calls and sends him will deliver him from both Jews and 
Gentiles (26 17 ). The cwrocrToAij and therefore the x<*P ( ? which are described in this 
way, and given to Paul with such inconceivable reality, have thus the twofold 
implication (i) that he should be baptised, and receive the Holy Ghost with 
personal remission of sins, and thus become a naBrjvqs (9") or Christian, and (2) a 
point which is not to be overlooked or despised that he should eat and drink 
again, and find refreshment, and thus continue the existence m time and space 
as a creature of God which seems to be so severely jeopardised at the end of the 
first act. 

All this in its unity is from the positive standpoint the conversion and transi- 
tion of Saul to Paul, of his ignorance to knowledge. Nor must we fail to appreciate 
the theological significance of the proportions in which it is presented in these 
passages. Precedence is obviously given to the calling of this man as a witness 
and his sending out to the work of proclamation. The restoration of his physical 
being is plainly co-ordinated with, or subordinated to, this primary factor, as 
is also his personal reception as a Christian. In relation to many later ideas, 
and to those which are dominant to-day, this is no doubt very strange. In our 
doctrine of the calling of man we shall have to remember that many things 
will perhaps have to be corrected if they are really to correspond to the way in 
which the matter is expounded here. Paul himself surely never conceived of 
any other possible order. But we must leave this for the moment. In the present 
context it must suffice to look beyond this subsidiary result to the main point 
in the stories, namely, that Jesus is Victor in the history of His persecutor and 
apostle. He is this both as the One who overcomes him and as the One who 
ordains, arms and sends him forth to overcome, enabling him to participate as 
a future victor in the fellowship of His own victorious being, action, suffering 
and triumph, in the fellowship of His own warring and all-conquering prophecy. 
" If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature : old things are passed away ; 
behold, all things are become new " (2 Cor. 5"). 

It simply remains for us to put the concluding question whether and how far, 
at the terminus ad quern of the history of Saul or Paul, i.e., on the new way, the 
way of the apostle Paul, which he now enters, there remains together with or 
behind his dominant knowledge an ignorance which is defeated and subjugated 
and cannot therefore rule, but which is active all the same In other words, to 
what extent, if at all, do we have to say that he exists in this antithesis ? Can 
it be claimed that the post tenebras lux which we witness as readers means that 
henceforth there is only lux in his life and there can be no more tenebrae ? The 
picture of the terminus a quo was not monochrome, as we have seen. It was not 
the picture of pure, unbroken, undisturbed ignorance. Can we claim, then, 
that we now have a monochrome picture on the other side ? There can be no 
doubt, as we have stated already, that in relation to those whom they addressed, 
to the communities to whom they turned in their Epistles, neither Paul nor the 
other biblical witnesses had any such picture in view. We are thus forced to 



210 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

assume that Paul did not regard himself merely as a figure of unbroken light. 
Nor do we need such a conclusion a posteriori to maintain that even as an apostle 
Paul did consciously exist in this antithesis, still active in its own way and within 
its own limits. He never referred to this day as belonging to an evil or glorious 
but in any case distant past. It was always for him the vfo of the transition from 
darkness to light which on this basis accompanied and characterised his whole 
course. If he was aware of the presence of the K<uvd which came into being on 
that day, he was also aware of the dpxala which passed away on that day. He 
recalled the former with gratitude, the latter with horror. But he really did 
recall both, even if in a relationship which could not be reversed but was un- 
shakeably fixed. To be sure, he was confident that Jesus Christ is Victor, that 
His Spirit is all-powerful, and therefore that his own way and warfare would be 
crowned with victory. But he still had to tread this way and fight this war. 
He did not yet enjoy a peaceful because relaxed perfection of knowledge. It 
was in this spirit that he proclaimed the justification of man by faith alone, love 
as the fulfilment of the Law (Rom. I3 10 ), and the hope which " maketh not 
ashamed " (Rom. 5*). For after all, why is it that hope particularly can be 
understood and proclaimed only as a genuine anticipation of the " manifestation 
of the sons of God " (Rom. 8") to which even these sons of God, in whom the 
Spirit is a first a-napx^i, can only look forward with groaning like the rest of 
humanity and all creation (Rom. 8 Mf -) ? It is because there is still present, and 
obviously known at first hand, an ungodly foovrjpa r^s oapi<6s, a possibility of 
being or walking <fv capri which is continually to be assigned to nothingness but 
which continually returns and threatens (Rom. 8 4f -), an cmOvfjUa -rijs aapKos 
which resists the Spirit and which the Spirit for His part must also resist (Gal. 
5 1 *). It cannot be taken as a matter of course that man will sow to the Spirit 
and reap everlasting life, and that he will not sow to the flesh and reap ^dopa. 
At the very height of his apostolic career Paul can and must write in the present 
tense and in personal terms a passage like Ro. 7 7 ' 26 , in which the contradiction 
in his existence is plainly to be seen in all its menace, and which closes with the 
raXai-rrajpos eyoi dv0pa>iros which, although it is matched and transcended by the 
xdpts TO) 0eo> 8ta 'Ivjaov XpiaroC, can still lead on to the final and dominating con- 
clusion : "So then with the mind I myself (avros fya>) serve the law of God ; 
but with the flesh the law of sin " (v. 25). We are not to isolate this passage, but 
always to bring it into relationship to the opening verses of the chapter (7 1 ' 8 ), 
and especially to see it in the greater context of chapters 5-8. Otherwise we 
shall fail to see where the way leads. Yet in face of the negative elements in the 
apostolic self-consciousness as they emerge so unexpectedly at this point in the 
whole sequence, we cannot conceal the fact that Paul and his communities are 
still on the way on which he was led before and into Damascus, i.e., the way from 
ignorance to knowledge. We remember that in i Cor. 13" Paul calls his present 
seeing (as distinct from seeing " face to face ") a puzzling seeing in a glass, and 
his present knowledge (as distinct from one commensurate with his being known 
by God) a knowing in part. That he does this surely rests on his awareness of 
the antithesis which is not resolved even in his existence. There can be no 
doubt, of course, that this antithesis is teleogically ordered in the irreversible 
movement from ignorance to knowledge. There can be no stopping or hesitating, 
for it is the antithesis of the history of the apostle as inaugurated and determined 
by Jesus Christ. It is an antithesis which goes down to destruction ; to the 
destruction of all ignorance by knowledge. Nor can there be any question of a 
retreat in this history. Yet it is a history which takes place in this antithesis. 
That the antithesis is not yet removed, but Paul can still regard the history as 
one of triumph, we learn from Phil. 3"*- : " Not as though I had already attained, 
either were already perfect ; but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for 
which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to 
have apprehended : but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are 



3. Jesus is Victor 211 

behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward 
the mark (oicoirts) for the prize of the high calling of God in Jesus Christ." 
This, then, is how we are to understand, so far as we can, the situation of the 
converted and holy apostle Paul, and therefore the terminus ad quern of the history 
of Saul who became Paul. It is clear that what we have here is a history of 
triumph, but also that it is genuine history. 

We have now answered the question as to the historicity of the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ, i.e., of His revelation and of the knowledge 
of the reconciliation effected in Him as this knowledge is established, 
awakened and fashioned by His revelation. We may conclude that 
the reconciliation of the world to God is in every respect history. 
But there is particular reason to emphasise its historicity at this 
point, in relation to its third form. In this form, in its character as 
light, Word and truth, it is historical in a distinctive and outstanding 
way. Generally speaking, this is because, as revelation which is the 
basis of knowledge, it here bursts from within and in its own strength 
its apparent restriction and isolation as that which has occurred in a 
specific time and place, transcending itself and moving into world- 
occurrence and the occurrence of each individual life, in order that it 
may there show itself and its occurrence to be the origin, meaning 
and goal of all occurrence and thus seize all occurrence and refashion 
it for participation in itself, impressing upon it its own law and giving 
it its own direction. It is the reconciliation of the whole world, of all 
men. Yet as such it must, it wills to be understood and grasped by 
the whole world and all men. It sees to it itself that this should 
happen in its third form in which its reality is also truth, the act of 
God in Jesus Christ is also the Word of God, the life is also light. As 
atonement takes place in this dimension, too, as it is also revelation 
establishing knowledge, it expresses and asserts what it is for the 
whole world and for each and every man. It thrusts down its roots 
and wins for itself form and existence in this outside sphere. It becomes 
the beginning of a corresponding wider and new history : of a wider 
to the extent that it takes place outside in the world and in and 
among men ; and of a new to the extent that its occurrence is some- 
thing novel and different and strange in relation to other events in 
this outer sphere. 

This wider and new history following and corresponding to the 
event of atonement is the Christian knowledge established, awakened 
and fashioned by the revelation, manifestation and prophecy of Jesus 
Christ. In accordance with the event of reconciliation in Jesus Christ 
as its origin, theme and content, it, too, is history, salvation history. 
In it, it can and should and must take place that what is done in 
Jesus Christ for all should express and assert itself, that the power 
and relevance of the Word of God as the third integrating element of 
His action and work in the world and humanity which receives it 
should be effective and visible, that the seed of the message of 



212 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

reconciliation, the covenant and the kingdom should be sown and bring 
forth fruit. But Christian knowledge is also history in the fact that 
its fulfilment in the world in this again it resembles its origin, theme 
and content necessarily comes up against non-recognition, resistance 
and contradiction. In the same correspondence, it is also history in 
the fact that it is always and everywhere achieved in the form of 
opposition to this contradiction and conflict with it. It is history 
finally and supremely in the fact that the victorious outcome of this 
conflict, and therefore its fulfilment, is decided from the very 
outset by Him who is its theme and basis, by Jesus the Victor. As the 
history of salvation enacted in Jesus Christ imparts itself as such, and 
is thus the history of revelation, it reproduces itself. Invading the 
history of the world and men, it again creates salvation history in the 
form of Christian knowledge. It creates the history whose course and 
content we have schematically indicated under the four heads of the 
preceding discussion. The supreme and distinctive feature of the his- 
toricity of reconciliation in its character as revelation, which is the 
theme of our present enquiry, might well be defined as follows. In this 
character, under this aspect of the prophetic office and work of Jesus 
Christ, it is self -multiplying history. For it does not merely take place 
in its two basic dimensions as man's justification before God and sancti- 
fication for Him. In so doing, it also transcends itself in a third dimen- 
sion grounded in the first two. It evokes its own reflection in the world 
and among men in the form of Christian knowledge of what has taken 
place in Jesus Christ. In this reflection, it is made clear that not for 
nothing did it happen that the relationship of the world and men to 
God, and therefore their whole constitution and situation, were made 
quite different in and through Him. Nothing less or other than 
reconciliation itself is made present and takes place wherever and 
whenever it establishes, awakens and fashions knowledge of itself and 
therefore Christian knowledge. This is what it does in this third 
dimension. As the divine wojk of justification and sanctification, it 
achieves its own real presence in the world and among men by revealing 
itself in the totality of its occurrence and establishing Christian know- 
ledge. Or, to put it the other way round, the real presence of recon- 
ciliation, i.e., of the living Lord Jesus, is the theme and basis and 
content of Christian knowledge. This, then, is the supreme and dis- 
tinctive way in which Jesus Christ is historical in His prophetic office 
and work. In His prophecy He creates history, namely, the history 
enacted in Christian knowledge. And the fact that He does this in 
His prophecy gives us good reason to emphasise His historicity (the 
historicity of reconciliation) both in its totality and specifically in 
relation to His third mediatorial office and work. It gives us good 
reason to set on a candlestick in this particular context the fact that 
Jesus Christ is Warrior and that as such He is Victor. 

If this emphasis is correct, it has certain basic and pregnant 



3. Jesus is Victor 213 

consequences for all Christian thinking, and therefore for all the spheres 
of ecclesiastico-dogmatic investigation and presentation, and indeed 
for the meaning, task and fashioning of Church proclamation in all 
its forms. These may now be briefly indicated. 

I. There is first confirmed and authenticated in this way the dis- 
tinction between the history of reconciliation and salvation which 
took place once and for all illic et tune in Jesus Christ, and which is 
the basis of Christian knowledge as effective also in its character as 
revelation, and the actual history of Christian knowledge which is 
established by and related to it, participating in it hie et nunc and 
taking place in this participation. We might also say that there is 
confirmed and authenticated the distinction between the one reality 
of reconciliation and its verification in the world and among men as 
this now takes place in Christian knowledge in virtue of its intrinsic 
truth. Or, to adopt more familiar terms, we might say that there is 
confirmed and authenticated the distinction between the ontic an<* 
noetic or objective and subjective elements in the intercourse between 
God and man inaugurated and ordered in Jesus Christ. Or we might 
say very simply but aptly that there is confirmed and authenticated 
the distinction between Jesus Christ as the Word of God and us 
Christians who receive Him as the Word of God. This distinction, 
however described, is confirmed and authenticated in our answer to 
the question of the particular historicity of the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ. There is urgent reason never to abandon but always to main- 
tain it. There is cause, therefore, wisely to refrain from identifying 
what is distinguished. The revelation of reconciliation as the act of 
God in Jesus Christ does not disappear and is not dissolved in any 
form of its knowledge, but underlies Christian knowledge in all its 
forms. Conversely, its knowledge does not disappear and is not dis- 
solved in its revelation but is established in it as a distinctive event 
by which it is awakened and fashioned. The Sower goes forth to sow 
on the field which is the world, and even where the richest fruit is 
produced He is not identical either with the field or the sowing. Con- 
versely, the field, whatever its nature, is dependent on the alien 
power and work of the Sower and His seed if it is to be ground which 
bears fruit. Jesus does not really identify Himself with Saul of Tarsus 
when He calls him. In calling him, He confronts him as a very 
different Other, as the Kyrios. Again, Paul does not merge into the 
Kyrios Jesus who encounters him. By His calling he is set on his 
own feet in relation to Him, and stirred to freedom and action as His 
apostle. Thus in the history in which knowledge is grounded, and in 
the Christian knowledge grounded in it, neither the ontic and objec- 
tive nor the noetic and subjective element is absorbed or swallowed 
up by the other. Both are elements in a relation which has and 
maintains and continually acquires the character of an encounter in 
which neither robs the other of its autonomy and distinctiveness, nor 



214 ^9- The dory of the Mediator 

indeed of its specific place and function in the encounter. In the real 
intercourse and exchange between them their mutual relationship is 
always irreversible and their connexion unequal. Precedence is 
always taken by the esse, by the objective occurrence of reconciliation in 
its first and second dimensions as the justification and sanctification of 
man and in its third as revelation, by Jesus Christ in His high-priestly, 
His kingly and also His prophetic work. He is always the primary 
acting Subject. He can only be followed by the nosse as the work of 
His prophecy, by the subjective occurrence of knowledge, by Christ- 
ians. They can be present and active only as secondary acting sub- 
jects. In the history between God and man there is no doubt an 
intimate relationship and reciprocity between establishing and estab- 
lishment, imparting and participation, truth and verification, leading 
and obeying, enlightening and enlightenment, address and answer. 
Yet these are still very different and inconvertible elements. The 
history of Jesus Christ embraces that of the world and all men. But 
it is impossible that the history of the world or any man should 
embrace, control or determine that of Jesus Christ. Such history can 
take place only as that which is embraced, controlled and determined 
by His, and not vice versa. Those who know Him owe to Him their 
knowledge and their name as Christians. His name cannot, then, be 
understood or declared as a mere vehicle of their knowledge or tradi- 
tional sign of their Christian existence. He remains the Head and 
they the members of His body. This is something to be kept strictly 
before us as we consider the further implications of the results yielded 
by our previous deliberations. 

2. A second implication which no less definitely demands con- 
sideration is apparently contradictory to the first but is really corre- 
lative. Our earlier discussion also entails relationship and reciprocity 
between the reconciliation which in its character as revelation estab- 
lishes Christian knowledge and the knowledge which is established by 
it and thus participates in its occurrence. Reconciliation does not 
happen in vain in this character. It is not for nothing that it has 
this dimension. For in this whole happening, and therefore in its occur- 
rence in this character, in the work of His prophecy, Jesus is Victor, 
as we have seen, in relation to the resistance and contradiction offered 
Him by the world and men. But this means that the revelation of 
reconciliation, and therefore, since this is an integral element in its 
occurrence, reconciliation generally and as such, does not merely take 
place for itself in a special sphere closed off by the resistance and 
contradiction which it encounters. On the contrary, it takes place as 
it establishes Christian knowledge in the world and in and among the 
men who are reconciled in its occurrence. There is, of course, no 
knowledge of reconciliation which is not grounded in the event itself 
as that of revelation. Any abstract consideration, reflection or state- 
ment of only the first or the second elements in the intercourse between 



3. Jesus is Victor 215 

God and man inaugurated and ordered by Jesus Christ ; any abstract 
use of such terms as ontic and noetic or objective and subjective ; 
any separation at the point where distinction is certainly demanded 
but only for the sake of clarifying the existing relationship, can only 
be evil and give rise to new confusions and false identifications. 
Neither of the two histories, i.e., of reconciliation in its self -declaration 
or of the Christian knowledge of it, takes place autonomously or 
in isolation from the other. As reconciliation in its character as 
revelation establishes, creates, guarantees and orders Christian know- 
ledge, it takes place in relationship to it, and sets it in relationship to 
itself. Relationship is thus essential on both sides, though different 
on both sides ; and it must be strictly taken into account for all the 
difference. The ontic or objective element implies as its consequence 
the noetic or subjective established by it. Conversely, the noetic or 
subjective element implies as its presupposition the ontic or objective 
which establishes it. If the implication is different on the two sides, 
it is still implication, and if we ignore it we cannot see or grasp on 
either side what is to be seen and grasped. A reconciliation which did 
not have Christian knowledge as its consequence would not be that 
which reveals itself ; and a knowledge which did not have this self- 
revealing reconciliation as its presupposition would not be Christian 
knowledge. If Jesus Christ is not High-priest and King without the 
whole people of those justified and sanctified in Him, He is not Prophet 
without the Christians called by Him to a knowledge of His high- 
priestly and kingly work and therefore of their justification and 
sanctification, together with others still to be called to this know- 
ledge through their ministry. Similarly, there can be even less ques- 
tion of Christians apart from the Prophet Jesus Christ who calls them 
to knowledge of the reconciliation which has taken place in Him and 
therefore of their Christian standing ; and even less question still of a 
Christian existence which either rests in itself or oscillates between its 
own heights and depths, but either way understands, interprets and 
declares itself in terms of itself and finds in Jesus Christ only its 
symbol or slogan. It is just because true theological thinking and 
utterance must not try to exist in either form of monism, but make a 
genuine distinction, that there must be no separation or abstraction, 
no exclusive contention or definition either on the one side or the 
other. Whether we think down from Jesus Christ to His people, or 
up from His people to Jesus Christ, we must respect and bring out 
the relationship and reciprocity which always characterise the inter- 
course between God and man inaugurated and ordered by Jesus 
Christ. To be sure, there is inequality. This is inevitable when on 
the one side we have as the primary acting Subject Jesus Christ in 
His prophecy and on the other as the secondary acting subjects those 
who receive His Word ; when on the one side we have the divine 
work of self-revealing revelation and on the other the human work of 



2i6 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Christian knowledge. But for all the inequality they are mutually 
related. It is not that either the one or the other in isolation is salva- 
tion history. In virtue of the dimension in which it takes place, the 
one, reconciliation, is salvation history for and in relation to the 
other, imparting itself to, impressing itself upon and taking up its 
dwelling within the other : and in virtue of the fact that it is reached, 
determined, ordered and fashioned by reconciliation, the other, 
human perception, appropriation and comprehension, is salvation 
history through the former, as its dwelling-place and by participation 
in its fulness. Salvation history is the going forth of the Sower, yet 
also the sowing and fructifying of the seed together with the being 
and action of the Sower. Salvation history is the history of the Jesus 
of Nazareth who encounters Saul of Tarsus, yet also the history of 
the apostle Paul who recognises and proclaims this Jesus as the Christ. 
Salvation history is both the establishing and establishment, the 
truth and the verification, the enlightening and the enlightenment, 
the address and the answer, each in its own relationship to that which 
is below or above it, yet each also with and in relation to the other, 
and not apart from it. Salvation history is the totality both in its 
dynamic differentiation and yet also in its unity. Salvation history is 
the history of the totus Christus, of the Head with the body and all 
the members. This totus Christus is Christm victor. This is the second 
implication of our previous discussion which we must not allow to 
slip from our grasp. 

3. Our third implication is that reconciliation thus takes place 
also in the Christian knowledge grounded in its revelation. In the 
course of its breaking out from the illic et tune and breaking into the 
hie et nunc of the Christian who knows it, it does not become a neutral 
truth maintained for no very obvious reason, nor does it become a 
tedious construct of thought, nor a static principle or system, nor a 
mere doctrine, however soundly constructed or endowed with ecclesi- 
astical authority. In this third form and dimension, as it establishes, 
awakens and fashions Christian knowledge, reconciliation takes place 
as God's act of salvation to and in man. The living Jesus Christ 
Himself is reconciliation. Not a mere something, but He Himself is 
revealed with its revelation. It is all real in Him, and therefore all 
that it includes is revealed as He is revealed. But He Himself is at 
one and the same time the Son of God who humbles Himself and 
justifies all His human brothers in His humiliation, and yet also the 
Son of Man who is exalted to fellowship with God and sanctifies and 
draws after Himself all His human brothers in His exaltation. This 
event of salvation is Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ is this event of 
salvation. And if Jesus Christ, who is Himself this event of salvation, 
reveals Himself and therefore this event of salvation ; if He makes 
Himself and therefore this event of salvation the theme, basis and 
content of Christian knowledge, this means that to the man who 



3- Jesus is Victor 217 

participates in His revelation, and knows Him in its power, a gracious 
share is given in the being and action which are first His own, and 
therefore in the event of salvation which is first God's act of salvation 
fulfilled in Him and taking place in His person for the whole world 
and for all men. And the prophetic work in which He gives this man 
a share in Himself, and therefore in the divine act of salvation fulfilled 
in Him, consists in the fact that He comes to him. He encounters 
him. He thus overcomes the temporal and spatial distance which at 
first seems necessarily to come between. He does not exist only 
primarily in His illic et tune, but also secondarily with this man in His 
hie et nunc. He makes Himself the object, and as a living and acting 
" object " the basis, and as a basis which underlies knowledge of 
Himself the content, of the contemplation and apprehension of this 
man. He makes his contemplation and apprehension serviceable to 
Himself in this way. He thus presents Himself to this man. He 
appears to him. To be sure, He does so in a secondary form. Yet He 
does so reahter and not just nominaliter. It is He Himself who appears. 
Secondarily but really He exists also in this man and his knowledge. 
And He Himself is reconciliation, the justification of all men as the 
Son of God and their sanctification as the Son of Man. He Himself is 
this event of salvation. What applies to Him applies also to it. As 
He is not only High-priest and King but also Prophet and Revealer 
of His work, this event cannot remain only an event fulfilled in Him. 
It is also revealed in its occurrence. In and in virtue of His revelation, 
it becomes the object, basis and content of human knowledge. It 
makes itself present in this. As the event of salvation it thus takes 
place, not just primarily there and then in Him, but also secondarily 
and no less really m the knowledge of salvation created by Him. It is 
thus the case that the one who participates in this knowledge partici- 
pates in the event of salvation itself. The event becomes the living 
seed and therefore the fruitful element in the events of his own life. 
Conversely, the events of his human life become the fruit-bearing 
field and therefore the confirmation and authentication of the event 
of salvation which comes to him. God's Word as the object, basis 
and content of his knowledge demonstrates and confirms itself in him 
as the act of God which it declares and in which it gives him a share. 
Hence as it takes place primarily, the act of God also takes place, not 
primarily but secondarily, yet in all its reality, in the one who knows 
the Son of God and Son of Man in His prophecy, in His Word. The 
work of Jesus Christ, the High-priest and King, did not merely take 
place for him as for all men. In the power of His prophecy, demanding 
his gratitude and obedience and service, it also happens to him and 
in him. " In Christ/' as Christ in His prophetic Word gives him a 
part in Himself and therefore in the fulness of His high-priestly and 
royal work, he becomes a new creature, a justified and sanctified 
child of God, in the further sense that he may find and know himself 



2i8 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

as such, that he must respond as such, that he is summoned and 
directed to orientate himself and act accordingly. In the power of its 
revelation, reconciliation thus takes place also in the Christian know- 
ledge established by it, and therefore to and in the men whom it, or 
rather He Himself as the great Mediator between God and man, 
causes to participate in its revelation. 

4. The fourth implication is the converse of the third. Yet we do 
not introduce it merely for the sake of completeness, but because it 
includes a further and materially important insight. It is to the 
effect that in the Christian knowledge established by the revelation of 
reconciliation, reconciliation does actually occur. What we have 
rather brusquely to oppose in this insight is a constant and widespread 
devaluation of the concept of knowledge. It is not the case that 
Christian knowledge can be regarded and described as a mere accept- 
ance or reflection, as mere thought, as mere conviction of perhaps a 
profound and even emotional nature. In this case it would be (i) only 
a subjective attitude which would leave open the question of the 
truth and reality of its object, and therefore of its basis and content, 
as if this were a completely separate issue. And it would be (2) only 
one subjective attitude among others, so that the question of its 
significance and relevance for the other possibilities and problems of 
human existence would still have to be raised and answered. If we 
understand Christian knowledge merely as a subjective human atti- 
tude which is only partial in its subjectivity, we can have no very 
high conceptions in this whole matter. When we come to speak of it, 
our most important concern will be to draw attention to the diffi- 
culties involved in so limited a human attitude. We shall lay our 
finger either on the preliminary question of an objective content corre- 
sponding (or not corresponding) to this acceptance, reflection, thinking 
or belief, or on the fact that knowledge is nothing more nor better 
than knowledge, i.e., on the open question of man's other and perhaps 
more essential inner and outer life, of his will and action, of the spiritual 
and moral praxis pietatis corresponding (or not corresponding) to his 
Christian knowledge. It may well be that in both respects we shall 
prefer not to proceed beyond a critical consideration and exposition of 
the situation, beyond an amateurish and dilletante enquiry concerning 
what is lacking in Christian knowledge as such. Or it may be that 
on both sides, with a greater emphasis on our supposed realism, we 
shall think that we can supplement this knowledge, our realism taking 
either a metaphysical form in relation to the dubious theme, basis and 
content of the knowledge, or perhaps a moral, sentimental or aesthetic, 
or possibly a sacramental or existential, in relation to its limitation as 
compared with other and perhaps more genuine and serious possi- 
bilities of human existence. Whatever the course adopted, the root 
is always a devaluation of the concept of Christian knowledge. In 
other words, when we think or speak along these lines, we do not yet 



3. Jesus is Victor 219 

envisage, or do so no longer, the true Christian knowledge established 
in the revelation of the reconciliation effected in Jesus Christ and 
therefore by the prophecy of Jesus Christ. If we really had this in 
view, we could not think or speak in this way. For our own part, we 
recall the usage and significance of the term " knowledge " in the 
Old and New Testaments. And we are reminded by our own systematic 
discussions that we are not speaking of any kind of even " religious " 
knowledge, in relation to which reservations and proposed additions 
might well be in place, but of the Christian knowledge grounded in 
and related to the prophecy of Jesus Christ. We thus maintain that 
this knowledge is not vulnerable either to enquiry concerning an 
objective being or content corresponding to and justifying the sub- 
jective attitude or to that concerning other subjective possibilities bv 
whose greater genuineness or seriousness it might be transcended and 
put in the shade. True Christian knowledge cannot be subjected to 
meaningful criticism on either side. Nor does it need any realistic 
amplification on either side. For its theme, which as such is its basis 
and as its basis its content, is the real happening of reconciliation in 
its character as revelation. Once we have seen and pondered and 
estimated that something happens in true Christian knowledge, and 
what it is that happens, we shall refrain from critical depreciation in 
the sense indicated, or from realistic inflation in the sense indicated. 
True Christian knowledge defies both these courses. It takes place as 
it is set in motion by its living object which seizes and retains the 
initiative in relation to man ; as from the very outset and continually 
(for this is a living object), it has in this its basis ; and as in the basis 
(for it makes itself known in this knowledge), it has its content. Since 
it takes place in this way, the question of a corresponding objective 
factor, and therefore the question of truth, is answered at the very 
beginning. The serious question of truth which has to be put to it 
cannot be whether or how far there is really a corresponding objective 
factor, and therefore whether or how far it can clear itself of the 
suspicion that it is a subjective illusion. The question of truth which 
must seriously be put to it is whether or how far it corresponds and 
does justice to the object by whose initiative it is set in motion and 
can alone remain in motion, and which is itself its basis and content. 
In virtue of this object, basis and content, there is no need of any 
attempt at metaphysical realism. Such an attempt can only lead to 
confusion, obscurity and evacuation of real content. Only by missing 
the object which totally claims it can this knowledge try even inci- 
dentally to seek a supposedly more real object of this nature. In the 
measure in which it does this, it ceases to be Christian knowledge. 
As it takes place, however, in the power of the initiative wrested from 
man by its object, there need be no fear that the claiming of man 
which it entails will be only partial and not total. The object itself 
sees to it that the act of contemplating and grasping it, of accepting 



220 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

and considering it, cannot possibly be purely intellectual. What 
takes place in real Christian knowledge is rather here we are reminded 
again of the New Testament concept of metanoia that the whole 
man with all his possibilities and experiences and attitudes is grasped 
by the object which takes and retains the initiative in relation to 
him, and turned right about to face this object, to be wholly orientated 
upon it. In the event of Christian knowledge, therefore, the question 
of perhaps more genuine and serious human attitudes and experiences 
which surpass mere knowledge is answered from the very first, and 
all attempts in this direction are rendered superfluous. Christian 
knowledge is the one genuine and serious attitude and experience. It 
stands in no need of moral, sentimental, aesthetic, sacramental or 
existential amplification. As it takes place, there also takes place 
much better and far more profoundly all that is perhaps rightly 
envisaged in such attempts. At a pinch it can itself be described and 
understood as the moral, sentimental, aesthetic, sacramental or 
existential happening par excellence. In the power of its theme, basis 
and content (of its object in this sense), it does not take place in isola- 
tion or poverty, but in the totality and fulness of its subject, the 
man who knows. For its theme, basis and content is the reconcilia- 
tion between God and man effected in Jesus Christ and also revealing 
itself in Jesus Christ. As a human action it takes place in participa- 
tion in His action. It has not grasped at this participation ; it can 
only receive it. Nor can it control this participation ; it can only be 
continually given it. But as it takes place in this participation, His 
action, i.e., that of Jesus Himself, takes place in it as a human action. 
If it does so secondarily and not primarily, it does so no less really, 
and no more and no less as the work of reconciliation itself. In virtue 
of the fact that the event of salvation is also as such the revelation of 
salvation in the power of which it becomes the object, basis and 
content of human knowledge, Christian knowledge, as it receives this 
object, basis and content, and takes place with reference to it, is the 
knowledge of salvation. As such, however, it is obviously itself an 
event of salvation. It is a secondary event, related to the primary 
event fulfilled in the one Jesus Christ and participating in this on the 
ground of His free address of grace. Yet with no less reality it is itself 
also an event of salvation. In Christian knowledge Jesus Christ 
comes to be and is really present to man. What He does for him He 
also does to and in him. He gives him the freedom, permission and 
command to be the man he is in Him, the new creature, the justified 
and sanctified sinner, His brother, the child of God, the responsible 
witness of the atonement which has taken place in Him. Less than 
this we may not think or say of the event of true Christian knowledge. 
What takes place in it is that through Christ, through the power of 
His prophetic Word, man becomes in the full and not merely the 
conventional sense of the term a Christian. 



3. Jesus^is Victor 221 

Having clarified the presuppositions, we shall now make our 
attempt to sketch the history in which light shines in darkness and 
the prophetic work of Jesus Christ is done in the form of the dis- 
closure of completed reconciliation and man's opening up to it. Where 
does this history begin ? How does it begin ? What course does it 
take ? How does it reach its goal ? These are the questions which 
must now be answered. 

It begins as in the created world God sets among men a fact which 
speaks for itself. This is the fact of the existence of Jesus Christ, 
who as the Mediator between God and man is also God's Word to us. 
It is the fact of the light which shines as such, of the reconciliation 
which declares itself as it takes place. We shall not now return to 
the divine positing of this fact as such, nor to its nature and signifi- 
cance. We dealt with these questions in the first two parts of the 
doctrine of reconciliation, and earlier in that of election. The history 
now under consideration begins with the special truth that this fact 
which God has set among us is not a mute but an eloquent fact ; that 
it is a fact which speaks for itself, which indicates and explains itself ; 
that it has and uses the power adequately to proclaim and therefore 
to communicate itself in its truth, to impart itself in its reality. Our 
reference is to the third dimension in which Jesus Christ is His own 
Prophet, light is its own light and reconciliation its own revelation. 
Not every fact has this character. The fact of the covenant which 
God has set in the created world and among men has it. It has it, 
indeed, in supreme and exemplary fashion. There are many other 
eloquent facts. But strictly speaking, we can say only of this one 
that directly as fact it is also statement, word, kerygma and light. 

Above all we must insist that even in this essential character it is 
still a specific fact, i.e., a fact which is singular, individual and distinct 
from thousands of others, indeed, from all others. To be sure, God 
posits it in many forms, but as and when He does so these are all 
limited by their place and time and manner. Hence it is not identical 
with the fact of the totality of the divinely created world. In face of 
it there is a whole world of other facts. It does not, therefore, exist 
and speak everywhere. As God posits it and it is thus an eloquent 
and radiant fact, always, in all its forms and in face of all other facts 
which occur and even speak always and everywhere, it constitutes 
something completely new which proclaims good and yet also unex- 
pected and vexatious news. It encounters the world and all men as 
the disclosure of what would be secret apart from this encounter. It 
speaks and shines among them from without, declaring what could 
not be known of itself either to the world or to any individual. The 
fact of the covenant is materially the fact of the intercourse which 
God has freely willed and instituted between Himself and the men 
who are certainly ordained for it by God but who of themselves have 
no claim to it nor any power to receive and enjoy it. The unexpected, 



222 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

inconceivable reality of this intercourse is declared and represented 
by this fact the overcoming of the distance, but also the distance 
itself, between God and man. It is thus a singular fact with its own 
time and place and manner as distinct from all others, not in order 
that it may remain alone, but in order that as such it may speak and 
enlighten and impart itself. As an individual, self-existing and self- 
disclosing fact it attests the particularity, uniqueness and sovereignty 
with which God has His divine nature and essence in face of all other 
reality and the false reality of nothingness, not to be isolated in this 
high majesty, but from it to pursue His cause in the depths of the 
world, to leave it for these depths, to make the cause of the world in 
these depths His own cause, and to prosecute it as such. We must 
not fail to note the distance from which He declares and imparts 
Himself, overcoming it as He does so. Not the cosmos is the Son or 
Word of God, but the unique One whom He sends into the world as 
His Son and therefore His Word. Not every man is a Christ, but 
Jesus of Nazareth alone. Salvation is for all, but the covenant, which 
as such is God's glad tidings, is not concluded with all. It is the 
covenant of Yahweh with Israel fulfilled in the Christian community 
as the body of Christ. Not all peoples are Israel. Not all societies 
are the community of the Lord. Not all writings are Holy Scripture 
as the document of this covenant. In each case there has had to be 
a particular positing for the addition of new documents of the covenant 
which as such can be called holy. Not every revelation is revelation 
of reconciliation. Not every attestation of revelation is thus witness 
of this revelation. Not all knowledge, therefore, is Christian know- 
ledge, nor all confession, however true or significant or clear or brave, 
Christian confession. Not all men are Christians. There are many 
kinds of prophets and apostles, true and false, those who speak in the 
name of the Lord and those who speak in their own name ; and we 
have to reckon with the fact that even among the false there may be 
many noble and impressive figures who still cannot be accepted and 
heard as true. Of a piece with this is the fact that theology is not 
universal science but can only be quite unpretentiously a particular 
discipline. The divinely posited and eloquent fact of the covenant is 
distinguished from all other facts, which may also be eloquent and 
notable in their own way, by a line which may not always be visible, 
which may be lost sight of for long periods, but which is intrinsically 
sharp. And we must add that in its particularity and individuation 
in relation to the many other mute or eloquent facts, it is something 
which, if appearances do not deceive, is externally modest and unim- 
pressive for all its inward glory. It may well be asked in every time 
and place whether its minority voice will ever be successful, or even 
make itself heard, in face of the majority of countless other statements, 
revelations, witnesses and confessions, and in face of so much only 
too eloquent silence. We must also add that its voice is not only 



3. Jesus is Victor 223 

directly and immediately that of the Son of God and His Holy Spirit, 
but also indirectly and immediately that of the servants of His Word 
and therefore of all kinds of fallible, confused and confusing men who 
have little or no adequacy for their task, so that it has a broken, 
anxious and afflicted sound and therefore seems to hold out little 
promise of successfully winning a hearing. But we mention this only 
to illustrate that the divinely posited fact of the shining light and 
eloquent covenant is in the totality of the world and human life one 
fact alongside and among many others of a very different nature and 
significance. It is a special fact which is called in question by them, 
and indeed compromises and calls itself in question in relation to them. 
It is precisely as such that God posits it alongside and in face of them. 
In the sphere of all these other facts, and to all the men in this sphere, 
it has to shine as the light of life and speak as the Word of the covenant. 
How could it shine, or speak, or present the intercourse of God with 
men, if it were not a special fact among many others with all its 
limitation, modesty and even vulnerability ? We must not be worried 
about this. In positing it, God Himself is not worried that He becomes 
a special instance, the great special instance, and as such our God, 
the Lord and Saviour of all men. It is as He speaks to and with us 
as such that He posits the special fact in which He is not everything 
in the world and among us, but this one thing among others, and 
therefore in the minority, and surrounded and burdened by the 
problems of this minority. In the confrontation of this particular 
fact by all others the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ, the 
history of the shining of light, continually begins in darkness. 

But the word " fact " which we have provisionally used to denote 
the commencement of this history is one which in its rather crude 
exclusiveness might finally give rise to error. " Fact " certainly 
means : quod factum est, that which has happened. And that which, 
posited by God, shines and speaks and declares itself as the beginning 
of this history, is certainly something which has happened. It has, 
indeed, happened c^'aTraf, once and for all. What is meant by 
the word fact in this context is first and last, essentially and properly, 
the history of Jesus Christ in all its forms. This is the covenant of 
God with man and man with God, and also its shining, its Word to 
the world as the covenant made and fulfilled for the world's salvation. 
It has in fact taken place once and for all. But what is meant by 
" once and for all " when we refer to His history ? It certainly bears 
a linear chronological sense. That is, it happened once as this unique 
history. It also means that, as the history of the way of Jesus of 
Nazareth to Jerusalem in the days of Caesar Augustus and Tiberius, 
it is revealed and shines and speaks as the history of salvation. But 
the " once and for all " as applied to this history cannot be intended 
or meant restrictively. What took place did not only take place 
then. It has not become past. It is not an event which is not present, 



224 69- The Glory of the Mediator 

or present only in the recollection of its happening then. Its shining 
and speaking cannot be reduced to the historia docet which is basically 
proper to all recollected history. It cannot be said of Jesus Christ 
that He merely has lived. It must also be said that as the One who 
has lived once He lives and will live. To avoid misunderstanding, we 
add that He does not merely do so spiritually but physically, in the 
very spatio-temporal form of His then history. As the One who has 
lived, He has no need of later recollection to live continually. Risen 
from the dead, He has appeared and been manifested to His own. 
His history has been, but it has not passed. It is the promise given 
also to our histories that one day they will have been, but will not have 
passed. As the history which overlaps all others, that of Jesus Christ 
takes place primarily, but in the particular history of Christian know- 
ledge it also takes place again and again secondarily. As that which 
took place illic et tune, it also takes place hie et nunc, in the present 
of other times, of our time. And present immediately in this way, it 
speaks and shines, not in distant echo of an old Word, but with all 
the clarity and urgency of a Word which, whether it is received or not, 
is spoken here to-day and is distinguished by its unique declaration. 
In all forms of the beginning of the history of the light shining in 
darkness we are thus dealing primarily with this fact which is not 
exclusive but open because constantly self-disclosing. As history, it 
begins with history. But although this history of Jesus Christ took 
place once, in its very singularity it really takes place, and therefore 
shines and speaks, for all times and in many other times. 

It is as such a history that it constitutes the " specific fact " in 
relation to the whole world and in face of all other facts. Its occur- 
rence is the distinctive and differentiating secret of the existence, 
content and declaration of the Old and New Testaments among all 
other books, of the Christian community among all other societies, of 
its knowledge, confession, witness, message and even theology among 
the many formally similar phenomena, even of Jews and Christians 
alongside and among the other men from whom they can hardly be 
distinguished and seldom to their great advantage. This distinctive 
element is simply the occurrence, shining and speaking of the history of 
Jesus Christ in all its external modesty and all its inner yet outwardly 
pressing glory, in all its supposed littleness yet also its true superiority 
in relation to all other events in the cosmic and human sphere, in its 
burdening and obscuring by all the affliction, caprice and corruption 
of the men who know and confess and therefore represent it, but also 
in the sovereignty with which it makes its way in spite of the resultant 
and perhaps most serious obstacles, continually overwhelming or 
penetrating the feeble and confused voice of Christians and our 
equivocal witness and dubious theology in such a way that this voice 
is made strong in its weakness. What would have become of the 
history of Jesus Christ in the world if in all this it had not constantly 



3- Jesus is Victor 225 

shone and spoken in its own strength ? It uses human voices. These 
can and should serve it. But it is not bound to them. It is not at 
their mercy. It is not determined by their faithfulness or unfaithful- 
ness, by their perfection or imperfection, by their cleverness or folly. 
In and in spite of all its good or bad human representations, it still 
shines in its own light, utters its own sound, speaks its own Word. 
Continually taking place in and among us Christians, it continually 
meets us in sovereign power, constraining us to new and more obedient 
attention, or rather setting us in freedom, giving to our knowledge 
and confession and witness and even to Christian theology a con- 
tinually new and at first unexpected form in which it then continually 
confronts the rest of the world with a new orientation and as the 
content of a new message. Like Israel, the Church could and can 
grow secular. That is, it can lose its particularity in face of the world 
around. It can set its light under a bushel, or lose its savour. But 
the history of Jesus Christ which underlies and controls that of the 
Church cannot itself become secular history. It remains always light 
and salt, shaming but also awakening the Church, judging but also 
saving and astonishing the others among whom it is represented by 
the Church It does not cease to represent itself, and therefore to see 
to it that it does not merely maintain its particularity in relation to 
the facts of other occurrence, but that it continually stands out from 
them in sharper and more distinct contours, so that, come what may, 
it shines the more brightly, it speaks the more clearly, and the 
history of the shining of light in the darkness can continually begin 
again 

We take another step backwards when we go on to say that in the 
reality in winch this history begins the positing must be that of God. 
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, Himself very God from all eternity, 
and as such also the Son of Man, and therefore the Mediator between 
God and us men It is God who in Jesus Christ reconciled the world 
to Himself. It is God who is the Founder and Lord of the covenant. 
What is told the world by the fact of the covenant, by the history of 
Jesus Christ, is the Word of God. This statement means that the 
beginning to which we refer, although it takes place in the world and 
has the character of a world event, is not one of the many beginnings 
within the world in the sense that its basis can be found in worldly 
forces and movements or that it results from worldly relationships 
and can be explained by them. On the contrary, it rests on a new 
positing of its own distinct from all the forces and movements and 
relationships of the world. If we were to abstract from God, and 
to look only to the created world and the possibilities and realities 
effective within it, we should have to say that the history of Jesus 
Christ comes from nowhere and has no basis. It would then be con- 
tingent in the strictest sense. It would have no presuppositions of 
any kind. It would be a puzzling and paradoxical fact in relation to 
C.D. iv.-in.-i. 8 



226 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

the world created by God. Its shining would be comparable to that 
of a meteor for whose descent and appearance there is no ground or 
explanation at any rate in the earthly sphere. It would have to be 
called mere fate or chance that in the world we do actually have the 
Christ event and its self-declarations. But neither here nor elsewhere 
is it advisable to abstract from God. The rise of light in the darkness 
does not have this random character. If things were as described, it 
would necessarily mean that the self-declarations of this Christ event 
would give rise to a limited astonishment, and even compel a certain 
attention, but could not enjoy or claim serious authority. In effect 
they would not really differ from an event grounded in and explicable 
by the world, for even a paradox or mere fate or pure chance can only 
accidentally kindle anything like respect. Hence, the measure of 
regard devoted to them would depend upon the arbitrary choice of 
the individual. It might be great, or small, or non-existent. In reality 
however, this beginning is neither one which is grounded in the world 
and its possibilities, nor one which has no basis at all. On the con- 
trary, it is posited by God and therefore has its basis and explanation 
in Him. It certainly takes place in the cosmos. But its basis and 
explanation are to be found neither in heaven nor earth, neither in 
nature nor history, but in God alone as their Creator. In relation to 
all the created bases of the world and their consequences, it is a new 
positing to the extent that as a new creation it takes place on the 
same level as the old, i.e., on the level of the God who is distinct from 
all reality and to whom alone reality owes the fact that it is and is 
not not. It takes place within reality. But it is not its work. It is 
not one of the products or positings of which it is capable. What is 
posited in it, the history of Jesus Christ, is not a further creaturely 
reality which is therefore distinct from God. It is a reality which 
in its creatureliness, its humanity and therefore its distinction from 
God is also united with Him, so that it is not merely human and 
creaturely but divine-human and divine-creaturely. As such it 
could not possibly proceed from the reality which is distinct from 
God. As divine-human and divine-creaturely it is a new reality in 
relation to it. Its positing is a new one in relation to creation. It 
belongs to the created world, yet not to this alone, but first and fore- 
most to the reality of God Himself. And as the work of this new 
divine positing, it has and enjoys in declaring itself a distinctive 
authority in relation to the created world. It is not any light, but 
the eternal light, which here shines to give a new radiance to the 
world which it cannot achieve of itself and which it cannot escape, 
but to which it can only subject its own lights. It is not any word 
which is here spoken from man to man and therefore from flesh to 
flesh, but in the flesh the Word of the One before whom every man, 
all flesh and all creation can only be silent. It is not any lordship 
which is established, exercised and proclaimed, but the lordship of 



3. Jesus is Victor 227 

the Lord without whose creative Word there would be no worldly 
powers and authorities and in face of whom no such power or authority 
can thus lay claim to independent force or significance. That which 
God as its Creator wills and willed from all eternity in and with the 
world ; that which alone it can serve as the world made by Him ; 
the great prius which heaven and earth, and man on earth and under 
heaven, can only follow as posterius this is what is event and revela- 
tion in the history of Jesus Christ. Its direct origin in God's eternal 
election, decision and act is what gives its voice authority. This is 
its distinctive feature. This is what gives it the contours which mark 
it off from other facts. This is the mystery of the awakening of Jesus 
Christ from the dead, and therefore of His unconquerable and in- 
destructible life, and therefore of the newness and originality with 
which He confronts the world and primarily and supremely Christians, 
and therefore of the beginning of the history of light shining in dark- 
ness. God Himself is the Beginner in this beginning. The history 
which here begins cannot grow old in time. It cannot become past 
history. In every age it begins with the same and indeed increasing 
power, for God Himself and His election, resolve and action are at 
work in its beginning. 

In further clarification of this beginning we must now underline 
the fact that its positing is a work of divine freedom. What God 
does, He does with no other necessity than that of His own good 
and holy but also sovereign election and will. He does it as and 
because He is God. There can be no question of any other reason. 
He does not owe to the world or man His covenant and its revelation. 
He does not even owe them their creation. He certainly does not 
owe them His coming to take up their cause in His own person. Nor 
does He owe them the fact that, instead of acting over their heads 
and confronting them with a fait accompli , He condescends to speak 
with man concerning these things, bringing them to his notice in the 
form of an offer, claiming his hearing and obedience and awaiting 
his response and reaction, when we might have thought that He 
could have much more directly and surely reached His goal by dumb 
and unilateral action. Man has no right or claim to any of these 
things, from the very first to the very last. This whole order, not 
least to the extent that within the framework of God's foreordination 
it implies and respects man's self-ordination and therefore his freedom, 
rests on the sovereign disposing of God and not on any imposed 
obligation to deal with man as is done and revealed in the history 
of Jesus Christ and its revelation. Man does not deserve that God's 
order should take this form. From the very outset he resists it. 
He breaks the covenant. He sins against God. He hardens himself 
against Him. He closes his ears to His voice. And in so doing he 
characterises himself as a being which does not deserve that God 
should deal with him as He does, but deserves the very opposite. If 



228 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

God does not allow Himself to be diverted by this attitude of His 
partner ; if He swears and keeps new faith despite and on the pre- 
supposition of man's apostasy, this merely discloses how doubly great 
and incomprehensible is His freedom. He is not dependent on man, 
nor is He referred to him, but acts on His own initiative, when He 
deals with Him in this order. He wills of Himself to be the God of 
man and to have man as His man. He determines of Himself to 
begin this history common to Himself and His creature, to create 
man with the determination of being His partner in this history, 
to maintain him in this determination in spite of his sin, to turn to 
him even as the sinner he is, to give Himself to him, to take up in 
earnest rather than to break off His conversation with him, to give 
value to his knowledge, faith, praise, thanksgiving and prayer, to 
call him and unwearyingly to claim his service as though he were 
worthy and capable of it. Why is this the case ? " What is man, that 
thou art mindful of him ? " Only one answer can be given, namely, 
that it was and is the good-pleasure of God to be mindful of him 
and to act towards him in this way. In other words, it is not accident- 
ally, nor arbitrarily, nor under any constraint or compulsion of a 
reality distinct from Himself, but in His own freedom that He is 
this God, that He is God in this way and not another. It is in virtue 
of this free and basic kindness that He is the God who makes Himself 
the Partner of man, and man His partner, in this covenant and con- 
versation, even though He does not owe him this, even though man 
has no right or claim, even though man deserves the very opposite 
of His address and self-giving. He is mindful of man because to 
Him as the God He is, His own glory and man's salvation, man's 
salvation and His own glory, are not two things but one. The 
freedom in which, determined by nothing and no one else, He was 
and is and will be this God and not another ; the execution and 
revelation of His own divine election these are our concern in the 
history of Jesus Christ and therefore in the fact with the positing 
of which the history of light shining in darkness begins. But the 
awkward term " positing " needs clarification as follows. It does 
not result from a systematic view of the essence of God or the existence 
of man or the relationship between them. It is not in any sense 
the fulfilment of a necessary postulate. It does not arise from any 
necessity, even that of the freedom of God to be this God and not 
another, or to be God in this way and not another. It is a free gift 
of this free God. Hence it is not subject to man's control or even 
to the reflection whether or not He might have refrained from it 
and therefore been another God. It is the gift to which there can 
correspond only the gratitude of man in respect for the divinity 
and therefore the wisdom and righteousness and therefore the inner 
basis of His election. The result is and this is the particular point 
to be elucidated that the history here to be narrated begins with 



3. Jesus is Victor 229 

the pure gift of the existence and history of Jesus Christ and therefore 
of His Word. 

The word " gift," correctly suggested and interpreted by the 
word " positing/' reminds us, however, that in the history of Jesus 
Christ, with which there begins the history of light shining in dark- 
ness, we have to do with the work of the free grace, goodness and 
favour of God, with His love for man, with His action for the supreme 
good of the world and man, with His work of salvation, deliverance 
and glorification on our behalf. As the gift of God the beginning of 
this history is per defimtionem good. Indeed, it is very good, un- 
equivocally good. The covenant has in view the life of the people 
with whom God has made it. The reconciliation of the world has 
in view its righteousness, peace and joy as imparted thereby. The 
act of the free God establishes our freedom. The history of Jesus 
Christ is the unmerited but unconditioned and unmistakeable Yes 
of God to man. It is as the Proclaimer of this divine Yes, and there- 
fore as the light of life, that Jesus comes. Hence He is Victor from 
the very outset. The content of His prophetic Word is the Gospel, 
good news. There are no ifs or buts in the kerygma of Christmas. 
To be sure, even though its content is good news, it awakens evil 
resistance and morose contradiction as it is proclaimed. It enters 
the antithesis of darkness. It comes to Herod and Pilate, to the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, even to drowsy and unbelieving disciples. 
In this antithesis, it necessarily has the form of a Word of strife and 
contention, of the Law which warns and accuses and threatens and 
condemns, of the preaching of God's wrath and judgment. Reference 
will be made to this later. But it belongs to the continuation of the 
history to be narrated, not to the distinctiveness of the light in its 
dawning. And even in this antithesis it will still be Gospel, the 
message of God's Yes to man, the Word of life, the positive preaching 
of righteousness and peace and joy and freedom, in its true and 
decisive statements. It would have to bow to the opposition and 
contradiction which meet it, to cease to be good and joyful news, to 
yield before its enemies, if it were to be to them a word of very 
different content, negative rather than positive, or partially negative 
and therefore only partially positive. Even in this antithesis it 
is only formally that it becomes the Law and thus proclaims the 
necessary divine No. The change is only in the husk, not in the 
kernel. And even in the husk of the Law the grace and goodness 
and favour of God are declared and revealed. Even under and with 
the divine No the divine Yes is pronounced as its meaning and purpose. 
Even the wrath of God is seen to be the burning of His love. Hence 
it is all the more important to realise that at the very beginning it is 
free from any relationship to this antithesis, being good and joyful 
news beyond any possibility of anxiety or suspicion. According to 
Matt. io 16 , did not Jesus send forth His disciples as sheep among 



230 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

wolves ? It must be so. For when His Word speaks of the will of 
God done on earth, of the coming of His kingdom, of His condescen- 
sion and man's exaltation, of the justification and sanctification of 
man as the act of God, it speaks of that which in itself and as such is 
a work which is good, which in its significance for the men to and 
for whom it is done is positive, which is saving and healing and com- 
forting and quickening, which makes the sick well and awakens the 
dead and forgives sins, which creates only righteousness and peace 
and joy, which establishes freedom. How could the Word, the revela- 
tion, the self-declaration of this work in itself and as such be a Word 
which contains both Yes and No and is therefore self-contradictory ? 
How could it speak, like so much poor preaching, half of grace and 
half of judgment, half of life and half of death, half of the love of 
God and half of the power of the devil ? But obviously it does not 
go forth in this form even in the antithesis. And in its beginning, 
in the origin from which it comes, it is pure Gospel. It does not 
even have the form of Law. It speaks only of grace and not of judg- 
ment, only of life and not of death, only of the love of God and not 
of the power of the devil. The light shining in darkness is in its dawn- 
ing, to which we now refer, pure and unadulterated light as an 
unreserved and unconditional indication of the gift laid in the hands 
of the world and men in the history of Jesus Christ. From the height 
of its purity it plunges into the darkness of the opposition and con- 
tradiction which encounter it. In these depths it necessarily assumes 
the character of light striving with darkness and therefore of broken 
light. It does not cease even as broken light to shine in these depths. 
In its origin, however, and even in the continuation of its history, it 
is in itself pure light. Otherwise even as broken light, in the vestment 
of Law, it could not shine victoriously and dispel the darkness. At 
this point there is no alternative. It is kindled by God, " the Father 
of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." 
He Himself has set it on a candlestick. The Word of truth with 
which " of his own will he begat us," is His " good gift and perfect 
gift " (James I 17f -). We do not merely set on an inadequate founda- 
tion our knowledge of this Word and therefore our faith and love 
and hope, but we ascribe ambiguity and contradiction even to the 
begetting will of God Himself, if we question the clarity with which 
His Word comes to us as such and the work of His Word begins to 
be done in the world and us. This is something which we must never 
do. In the Word spoken in the history of Jesus Christ we have the 
first rays of eternity. By His might He dispels our night. The 
message is one of day-break. It is the disclosure of the perfect gift 
which God in His grace has put in our hands. It is a message of 
salvation. 

We may sum up the conclusions thus far reached as follows. At 
its beginning, the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ is one 



3. Jesus is Victor 231 

which (i) in and with its own history, (2) which speaks for itself and 
(3) is distinctive in relation to all other events, (4) does not merely 
belong to the past in its singularity, but is divinely present (5) within 
the world, (6) inaugurated by God in His sovereign freedom and 
(7) unequivocally revealing His grace. We must not overlook any of 
these characteristics if we are to understand correctly the commence- 
ment and therefore the continuation of the prophetic work of Jesus 
Christ, of the dawning of His light, and the declaration of His Word 
as the Word of the covenant. We are not suggesting, of course, that 
any of these characteristics in isolation can set us on the way to true 
understanding but rather that all of them are essential in the unity 
in which they mutually condition and supplement each other. No 
word or name or concept must be used to denote this unity apart 
from the one name of Jesus Christ. None of them, therefore, can point 
to any other reality than that of Jesus Christ Himself. But if the 
reference to Him is to go beyond the mere naming of His name, which 
in the last resort is alone adequate and comprehensive, it is hard to 
see how in this context any of the characteristics mentioned can be 
left out in substance, however we might enumerate or define them 
in detail. 



As they have been here adduced and cursorily described, I have tacitly taken 
them from the total witness of Holy Scripture, with constant reference both to 
its Old Testament form and also to the way in which the work of the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ begins in its secondary form in Christian knowledge as it is to be 
understood according to the guidance of the New Testament Whether the 
proposals and descriptions attempted really fit the facts and are accurate and 
satisfactory can be decided and judged only in relation to the relevant witness of 
Scnpture m the same totality. But I do not think that on this basis we shall 
quickly come to conclusions on this matter which differ essentially or decisively 
from those advanced 

In view of the importance of the question, however, it is perhaps not wholly 
superfluous that we should check at least one element in the biblical witness 
which particularly demands our attention, namely, the Gospel of John By 
means of this we can show m outline that the seven characteristics adduced 
were not selected and presented at random, but in the light of the source by 
which Christian theology must always orientate itself and be authoritatively 
instructed in what it must venture to say and not to say It is especially relevant 
that we should consider the verdict of this Gospel in the present context because 
the terms Word, light, revelation, speech and witness denote the specific angle 
from which the history of Jesus Christ is seen and recounted in this Gospel. 
Epigrammatically, we might almost say that the Gospel of John is the Gospel 
of the Gospel itself, i e , of the prophetic work of Jesus Christ Our present 
concern, however, is with what we learn from it concerning the beginning or 
initiation of this work. 

i. It is crystal clear that everything here begins with the entry, speech and 
action of Jesus Himself among men " I am " is both the presupposition and 
the epitome of what He has to impart and of what the Evangelist has accordingly 
to say to the community and the world. I am the way, the resurrection, the 
life, the door, the bread, the vine, the Shepherd, and also the truth, the light, 
the Word. Accordingly the Baptist, with whom the author seems in some sense 



232 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

to identify himself under the name John, has no witness to bear except to the 
fact and he points away from himself in a way which is exemplary for all true 
witnesses that " this (o&ros) is he." And it would be difficult to contest that 
the same otiros is not already announced in the Prologue : " The same was in 
the beginning with God " (i 2 ), i.e., the Word which was made flesh (i 14 ) and 
to whose presence the Baptist later points (i. 8 . "). From the very moment 
when John sees Him " coming unto him," His history absorbs that of the 
Baptist. He is the Son of Joseph of Nazareth (i 48 ), and concrete features are 
occasionally mentioned to make it clear that He is a real man. Yet He is an 
absolutely dominating and almost more than lifesize figure beside whom the 
disciples, the hostile " Jews," the people, Nicodemus, the Samaritan woman 
and finally Pilate, with all their speeches, questions, answers and attitudes, 
seem to have only the function of giving Him occasion to express and present 
Himself. In everything that takes place and is said and done it is a matter of 
His person and the work accomplished in His existence. For all others, for the 
world and His disciples, it is a matter of what He is for them and among them, 
of His mission and coming and going and abiding and coming again ; and on 
their side of their positive or negative attitude to Him, of their being as His 
friends or enemies To have faith, and in faith eternal life, means quite distinctly 
to believe in Him , and not to have faith (and therefore to be condemned) 
means not to believe in Him. Eternal life (17*) is to know the one true God, and 
with Him Jesus Christ whom He has sent. 

2. His work, the sum of the work laid upon Him by the Father who sent 
Him, and accomplished or still to be accomplished by Him as the One who has 
been sent, consists in His being the light and Witness and Revealer of the glory 
which He has not usurped and which is not in this sense His own, but which has 
been given in all its fulness by the One who sent Him and which is therefore His 
own (i 14 ). As soon as He appears in the Fourth Gospel He is this Revealer. 
The Baptist has only to see Him and at once not on the basis of spontaneous 
knowledge (i 81 - 8S ), but on the basis of the immediate revelation of Him who sent 
Him he describes Him as " the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sm of the 
world." And it is with the recognition that He is the Messiah " of whom Moses 
in the law, and the prophets did write " (i 46 ), "the Son of God the King of 
Israel" (i 49 ), i.e , with the knowledge later expressed by Peter at Caesarea 
Philippi, that those who are to be His disciples come to Him and on this basis 
are called to follow Him Here, then, His prophetic work is already being done 
even before He commences His teaching and miracles In the beginning of all 
beginnings with God (i 1 ), namely, in the disposition of God which precedes 
history, and as Himself God, He not only spoke but was the very Word by which 
all things were made and without which nothing was made that was made In 
Him was life. He was the light of life which lightens man He was the power 
of the saving work of God to speak for itself as it is accomplished. As He was 
this light, He now is, and He thus shines m the darkness and cannot be overcome 
by it. The Baptist, too, can be called a " burning and a shining light " (Av^voy, 
5 86 ), yet He is not that light (<<Ss), but can only be called its witness, the witness 
of this incomparable Witness. He Himself was this Word and light He did 
not have to become a Witness and Revealer. He was so from the very first 
With His present " I am " He reaches back even behind the time of Abraham 
(8 58 ). He shares the glory of the Father before the world was (i7 6 ). He is 
loved by the Father before the foundation of the world (i7 24 ). And it is thus 
that He raises His voice, the voice which the dead shall hear and live (5 26 ). He 
really does raise it. The beginning does not make the continuation superfluous, 
nor His history as such empty and meaningless The Gospel of John recounts 
the history of works, of revealing words and acts, of genuine encounters and 
decisions. But it recounts them with the orientation and dynamic proper to 
this history from the very outset, i.e., in the light of its basis in God Himself and 



3- Jesus is Victor 233 

then in the first beginning in time, of the unity in which the being and action 
of Jesus as such are also His word, or rather the Word of Him that sent Him. 
Far from this weakening the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ, it is the very 
thing which gives it its clear and distinctive light and thus enables it to be told 
as illuminating history. 

3. It is inevitable that in John's Gospel the prophetic work of Jesus should 
be differentiated and marked off quite unmistakeably from all other prophecies, 
revelations, witnesses, voices, words and lights. The acknowledgment of the 
Baptist is plain : "He bare witness unto the truth " (5 33 ). " But I have greater 
witness than that of John " (5 86 ). Indeed, the witness of John himself points 
consistently in this direction . " After me cometh a man which is preferred 
before me : for he was before me " (i 80 ) " He that cometh from above is above 
all : he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth " (3 81 ). In 
this respect the Baptist has his own place, and his own task and authorisation 
within these limits. " I am not the Christ, but am sent before him. He that 
hath the bride is the bridegroom , but the friend of the bridegroom, which 
standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice . 
this my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase, but 1 must decrease " <3 28f ). 
Again, there is a plain acknowledgment of the Old Testament, which also pre- 
cedes and points to the prophetic work of Jesus Christ " Search the scriptures ; 
for in them ye think ye have eternal life : and they are they which testify of 
me " (5 89 ) " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day and he saw it, and 
was glad " (8 B6 ) " Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father : there is 
one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust For had ye believed Moses, 
ye would have believed me for he wrote of me But if ye believe not his writings, 
how shall ye believe my words ? " (5 46f ) It is m this positive presentation of 
the place and function of other genuine witnesses that the basic particularity 
of that of Jesus emerges " No man hath seen God at any time , the only 
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him " (i 18 
cf. 6 48 ). Hence He is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and no man comes to 
the Father except by Him (i4 6 ). Hence the disciples, having believed on Him 
and known Him, cannot go to any other, for He and He alone has the words of 
eternal life (6 68 ). Hence they cannot confuse His voice with any other. As He 
calls them by name and leads them out, they hear Him and " follow him : for 
they know his voice And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him : 
for they know not the voice of strangers " (io sf ) 

4. In recounting this history, the Fourth Gospel does not narrate a past 
history, but one which is present in its unique content. To be sure, it speaks 
not only of His coming and existence, but also quite emphatically of His going, 
of His exaltation from the earth, of His return to the Father. To be sure, His 
presence among His own and in the world seems to be limited in a way which 
seriously threatens His whole work by the irruption of His suffering and death 
as they are ever more plainly intimated after the great uproar of the seventh 
chapter. Yet it would be quite inadequate to describe as " parting words " the 
content of the three chapters (14-16) which stand supremely under this shadow 
of the cross Already m 6 56f - we read : "He that eateth my flesh, and drmketh 
my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and 
I live by the Father : so he that eateth me, shall live by me," and this twofold 
living in and with one another, which obviously cannot be broken by any parting, 
is the tenor of the later passages too. The One who to-day is " the resurrection 
and the life " (n 26 ), will also be this to-morrow. The One who can promise to 
those who believe in Him that they will live though they die, will also Himself 
live though He dies. And it is not just m spite of His departure but because of 
it for it is the completion of His life that He will be definitively present to 
His own and to the world, and they to Him, and also and precisely|on the far 
side of this departure. " Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified 



234 ^9- The Glory of the Mediator 

in him," is the boldest possible anticipation of 13" immediately after the un- 
masking of the purpose of Judas and therefore at the commencement of the 
story of the passion. This glorifying is indestructible by its very nature. In 
the light of it we cannot be too faithful to the positive content of the parting dis- 
courses. " Let not your heart be troubled : ye believe in God, believe also in 
me " (I4 1 ). " For all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known 
unto you " (15"). " Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken 
unto you " (15'). "I will not leave you comfortless : I will come to you " 
(14"). " A little while, and ye shall not see me : and again, a little while, and 
ye shall see me " (i6 16 ). " But I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, 
and your joy no man taketh from you " (i6 22 ). " He that loveth me shall be 
loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him " (i4 21 ). 
"Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will 1 do" (i4 18f *. I 5 7 > i6 28 26 ). 
The Holy Spirit, sent by the Father and Himself, will be the " Comforter " who 
will make all this true to them, who will continually glorify Him afresh, who will 
teach them all things as He takes of His and shows it to them, who will lead them 
into all truth, but who will also convince the world of the sin of their unbelief, 
of the meaning of His death (cf. I2 81 ) and of the judgment already executed 
on its prince (14", 15"'-, i6 7 ^ 14 ). Hence . " In the world ye shall have tribula- 
tion : but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world " (i6 33 ). For after 
He has lived His life to the final point of self-offering, He does not live any 
less, but really lives and is really present to His own and to the world This 
is how His history continually becomes a new reality to His own and to the 
world. 

5. All this can and must be the case because it is the history which here 
below, on earth and among men, is inaugurated from above, from heaven and 
by God. The man who speaks in it is not alone (8 16 , i6 32 ). He does not speak 
of Himself (5', 12", I4 10 ). He has not come to do His own will (6 s8 ), nor for 
His own glory (8*), like those who speak of themselves (7 18 ). Again, He does not 
bear witness of or to Himself, for otherwise He would not be a true Witness 
(5 80 , 8 14 ). Yet He does not need human witness or honour (5 81 ). As the Son 
of the Father, He speaks what He has heard of Him (8 26 40 ), what He has been 
commissioned by Him to speak (i2 49 ), and as He has been taught by Him (8 28 ). 
He gives His own the words which He has received from the Father (i7 8 ). His 
meat is to do His will and to finish His work (4") Hence He does not do His 
own works, but those of the Father who sends Him (g 4 ) It is the indwelling 
Father who does them (i4 10 ). He Himself does them only in His name (io 28 ) 
Only as He does them in this way do they bear witness (5 88 ), the Father thus 
witnessing to Him and for Him (5 87 , 8 18 ) As the One who glorifies the Father, 
He Himself is glorified by Him (i2 23 , i3 31 , ly 1 *) This twofold glorification, 
however, takes place as He is in the Father and the Father in Him (io 38 , i4 10 , 
17"). as He and the Father are one (io 30 ), so that to see Him is to see the Father 
(14*) and to honour Him is to honour the Father (5 28 ). It is in this fellowship of 
action and being with God that the man Jesus is the Revealer, the Light, the 
Witness of the truth. To believe in Him is thus to know that what He says and 
does is said and done in this fellowship 

6. It is at this point that the mystery of the divine freedom must be con- 
sidered. The fellowship of action and being with God in which the man Jesus 
is the Revealer rests, of course, as regards its basis and possibility, on the divine 
disposition which precedes all history and indeed the creation of the world, and 
which is the theme of the Prologue and of later passages which either refer to 
this or are in harmony with it. But since the inner divine disposition as such is 
grounded in the freedom of God and not in a compulsion to which He is subject, 
so is its historical actualisation, the temporal event of the incarnation of the 
Word. This is the absolutely sovereign act of God which in John's Gospel is 
continually descnbed as the Father's sending of the Son or the Son's being sent 



3. Jesus is Victor 235 

by the Father. It cannot be taken for granted that this self-revealing work of 
God among men not only can take place on the basis of that divine disposition, 
but that it actually does take place, that the concrete fellowship of God and man 
there decreed and sealed in the height of the divine counsel is in fact enacted and 
manifested here in this one person. That the Word itself was once and once-for- 
all as we are, that it tabernacled among us, that its glory was perceptible to and 
perceived by us (i 14 ) this is the unexpected and therefore absolutely majestic 
declaration, transforming our whole situation, of a Messenger from another sphere 
imparting and bringing what we neither have nor can have, namely, eternal life. 
As we read in the clear-cut saying in 3 18 , God gave His Son " that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Like the life 
itself, the revelation in the world which makes faith possible is a free gift of God, 
grounded only in the fact that He loved the world which was and is quite un- 
worthy of such love. But it is again a free gift of God, according to the emphatic 
declaration of the Fourth Gospel, when His Messenger is heard and obeyed. 
" No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him . . . 
Every man therefore that hath heard and hath learned of the Father, cometh 
unto me " (6 44f -)- Hence the disciples whom He finds and who find Him are 
called those who are given Him out of the world. " Thine they were, and thou 
gavest them me " (i7 fl ). They are born, " not of blood, nor of the will of the 
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God " (i 18 ). Those who do not believe are 
not thereby excused Nowhere in the New Testament are such sharp and stern 
sentences passed on unbelievers who despise and reject the gift of faith as in the 
Fourth Gospel And yet according to the same Gospel those who may believe 
can never doubt for a moment that they owe to the divine freedom both the 
objective presupposition and the subjective fulfilment of this action and therefore 
their whole existence in this circle, so that they can receive and honour not only 
the Son but also their faith in Him only as a free and quite unmerited gift made 
over to the world and to them 

7 What does Jesus reveal according to the Fourth Gospel ? What is the 
positive thing which He makes known, which He causes to shine as the light of 
the world, as He reveals Himself and His own glory (i 14 , 2 n ) ? We look back 
for a moment to our fifth point, and must first reply that He reveals Himself 
as the One who as the Son of God exists in this fellowship of action and being 
with the Father, by whom the Father's work is done, and who for His part wills 
to do and does this work His glory consists in the fact that He glorifies the 
Father and in so doing (showing Himself to be sent by Him) is Himself glorified 
by Him It consists in the fact that the Father is in Him and He in the Father, 
that He and the Father are one. But the expression " fellowship of action and 
being " is too weak to describe what Jesus reveals as this glory of His. The 
Gospel characterises what takes place in this fellowship with greater force and 
content when it speaks of the love of the Son for the Father and of the Father 
for the Son Their fellowship, unity and indwelling are thus described as their 
action and being in free and mutual affirmation and surrender, the Son loving 
the Father and being loved by Him, and vice versa. This love is the content 
of the Word or declaration of Jesus, the positive thing which He makes known 
to the world. In the perfection of its movement it is the light which in His 
person shines in the darkness Is this, then, the revelation of the inner divine 
mystery ? It is this, too, and it is because it is the revelation of perfect love in 
God Himself that even in its conflict with darkness it has and maintains its 
positive character, its superiority and invincibility. But the revelation of this 
mystery can and does take place only because it does not remain this inner 
divine mystery, but discloses itself within the reality distinct from God, the 
Word being made flesh, the Son who loves and is loved by the Father becoming 
identical with the man Jesus, so that Jesus is the One who is in the Father and 
the Father in Him, who glorifies the Father and is glorified by Him, who does 



236 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

the work of God and by whom this work is thus done. He, the man Jesus, the 
son of Joseph of Nazareth, can and does reveal love in God because He Himself 
exists in its perfect movement. In His human person therefore and this out- 
breaking of the divine mystery is the point and true content of His revelation 
the world is brought into this movement as the world which loves God and is 
loved by Him. What took place (3 18 ) in the sending and giving of His only 
begotten Son, who loved and was loved by Him, was that God did not love Him 
alone but also loved the world, and that He was not loved by Him alone but 
also by the world. It is as this man loving and loved by the Father, sent by Him 
into the world (io 86 , 17"), coming out from Him and coming into the world 
(i6 M ), that He speaks in and to the world (8 26 , 17") and is the light of the world. 
The world does not know Him, nor the light which shines in Him, nor His sending, 
nor His intervention for it, nor what it is therefore in Him (i 10 , 17"). But this 
does not alter the fact of what He is for it nor the fact that in His person it is 
drawn into the movement of the love of God as the world which is loved by 
God and loves Him in return. In spite of its ignorance He Himself is the pledge 
that it is this world. And with Him, as His disciples, those who believe in Him, 
the community of His followers, are a similar pledge. As they follow the drawing 
of the Father to the Son (6 44 ), the mutual love and fellowship and union, the 
reciprocal affirmation and surrender of the Father and the Son, are also in them. 
As they believe in Jesus, there is realised in them that which He achieves by 
His intervention as the One sent by God Believing in Him, they have eternal 
life. Believing in the light, they are " the children of light " (i2 36 ) For their 
own sake ? Certainly for their own sake, yet primarily and decisively that they 
should shine in the world with what is realised in them by faith in Jesus, that 
they should love one another (i3 84 , i5 12 17 ), that others should believe in Him 
through their word (17*), that the world should believe " that thou hast sent 
me " (17"). From the body of those who believe in Him there are to flow rivers 
of living water (7 88 ). It is, therefore, the love which is in God Himself, which 
goes forth and breaks into the world in the existence of the man Jesus, and 
which is first actuahsed in those who believe in Him that they should be its 
witnesses it is this love which the Jesus of the Fourth Gospel reveals as He 
manifests His glory. He reveals the self-affirmation of God as His affirmation 
of the world. He reveals Himself as the One in whom this affirmation of the 
world takes place, as the Saviour of the world (4"), the Bread of God which 
gives life to the world (6 88 61 ), the fulness of life, so that what He gives and what 
is received from Him is absolutely unequivocally and exclusively grace, " grace 
and truth " (i 14 17 ), " grace for grace " (i 18 ), inexhaustible, victorious grace 
which can be followed only by more grace. " Whosoever drmketh of the water 
that I shall give him shall never thirst ; but the water that I shall give him shall 
be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life " (4 14 ). Ter^Aeorat : 
" It is finished, the goal is reached," is the last saying of the Johanmne Jesus 
(19*). In Him, therefore, there is no negative alternative foreseen by the Father 
who sends Him and the One sent by Him. This can arise only contrary to all 
plan and purpose as No is said to the unconditional divine Yes pronounced in 
His sending, as the hour of the clock which stands already at completion is 
wilfully pushed back, as the world already saved by Him acts as though it were 
not, as though it were not nourished by Him This impossible No must be 
negated by the divine Yes, by the Yes of Jesus. It recoils upon those who are 
guilty of it. " He that believeth not is condemned already " (3 18 ). " He that 
rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him : the word 
that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day " (i2 48 ). " He . . . 
shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abideth on him " (3"). " This is the 
condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather 
than light, because their deeds were evil " (3 19 ). To this extent the sending of 
Jesus becomes in fact a sending for the omnipotent execution of true and righteous 



3. Jesus is Victor 237 

judgment (5"' " *, 8 18 ), making a distinction in which the blind are shown 
to see and the seeing to be blind (9 M ). It is to be noted, however, that it only 
becomes this in its conflict with darkness and in its relation to those who ignore 
and reject. It is so unavoidably as it must negate their negation. It is so in its 
opus alienum. But it is not so in itself, in its opus proprium which cannot be 
altered by any darkness, by any human opposition, nor by its own opposing of 
this opposition. " I judge no man " (8 15 ). " God sent not his Son into the world 
to condemn the world , but that the world through him might be saved " (3 17 ). 
And therefore " he that heareth my word, and beheveth on him that sent me, 
hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation ; but is passed from 
death unto life " (5 24 , 3") He has judgment, condemnation and death behind 
him, and not as an alternative ahead. For in the revelation of the glory of Jesus, 
in the love of the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father, in the light of 
love which shines in the darkness, there is no alternative, since this light is 
absolutely, unequivocally and exclusively the positive light of life 

And now we must give a brief account of the course of the history 
of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. In its course, though not its com- 
mencement, it is a history of conflict. Indeed, among the many such 
histories in which human existence is only too rich both on a larger 
canvas and a smaller, it is strictly the only absolutely necessary, 
important and relevant history of conflict. Beside it all the rest seem 
to be little more than shadowy caricatures. For all the bitterness and 
bitter consequences which they entail, they merely point to the 
fact that the only great and serious history of conflict, that of the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ, has not yet been concluded but is still 
pursuing its course. If it had reached its goal, this would have meant 
the end of all the other human histories of conflict which in the long 
run, both as a whole and in detail, rest on misunderstandings and are 
waged in misconceptions. Since the great and true history of conflict 
still runs its course, these others, too, cannot yet be terminated, but 
in thousands of forms must be experienced in all their bitterness. 
" Till Thy love conquers, there can be no peace." 

This love and its light are not lacking. In it there is only peace, 
and in the event its light is the pure light of grace. But dawning 
as such, it shines in the darkness, and its history is thus one of con- 
flict against darkness. Darkness is the sum of all discord. Hence 
there can be no peace between it and the love of the Father and the 
Son. The light of this love can only fight and repel and destroy it. 
In relation to it Jesus and His Word bring a sword on earth (Mt. io 34 ). 
We could not speak even of the beginning of His prophecy without 
incidentally considering its continuation in opposition and strife. 
Nor could we develop the basic problem of its historicity except in 
relation to the conflict in which it takes place. It is this occurrence 
in conflict which now demands more detailed discussion. 

To understand it, we must above all things avoid an error to 
which we are in continual danger of falling victim in an anxious 
concern for the relationship of Christianity and the Church to the 
world around. In this conflict it is primarily a matter of the attack 



238 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

of light on darkness and not vice versa. Only secondarily, and under 
the law imposed by the attacker, is it a matter of the defence of dark- 
ness against light. At the commencement of this struggle it is Jesus 
who lifts the sword the incomparable, living, effective and penetrat- 
ing sword of Heb. 4 12 against which sin, death and the devil are 
forced to defend themselves as best they can and with what weapons 
they can, though we may surmise that these will prove to be no better 
than the toy swords of children. 

It is not the case, then, that what we have here, in a hostile, self- 
contained and self-assured world, is a truth which is right and 
beautiful and good, which even claims to be the primary and ultimate 
truth of God, but which only occasionally raises its voice, which for 
the most part is simply there modestly and quietly, which continually 
asks itself rather bashfully whether it will secure approbation and 
applause, which has indeed the task of finding this. It is not the 
case that we have a truth which is confronted and opposed by the 
great and little validities, certainties, powers and forces of the world 
around in all their unconcern, their basic because self-assured in- 
difference, yet also their mounting suspicion and sometimes their 
open hostility. It is not the case that we have a truth which un- 
fortunately secures little or none of the approbation and applause 
which it seeks, but more often rejection and hatred and even worse 
contempt, so that under attack it has either to yield or to reply in 
self-defence and self-justification. It is not the case that what is 
possible or impossible, what is actual or non-actual, what takes place 
or does not take place in the circumstances of tins conflict initiated 
and dictated by its opponents, is what really constitutes the shining 
or warlare of light in darkness. 

What we have first to realise is that this picture, which might 
correspond to an anxious view of the history of Christianity and the 
Church in the world, does not correspond in the least to the battle 
history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. In this history we do not 
have an intrinsically right and beautiful and good truth modestly 
confronting a hostile and autarchic world. In it we do not have the 
mere raising of a claim or making of a bid. In it there is no question 
as to the outcome. In it there is no recognition of an adult world 
capable of affirming or rejecting its declaration. In it there is no 
waiting for agreement and no surprise if it is not forthcoming. In it 
there is no preceding initiative or offensive on the part of the opponent. 
In it every opponent is first attacked. He is attacked even before he 
realises it, or resolves and rouses himself to act as an opponent. In 
it he is known, exposed, challenged and dealt with as such and thus 
given his character as an opponent. In it there can be no question 
of replies or self-defences or self- justifications, because there are no 
courts where such are required. In it the conflict with the opponents 
and their indifference, suspicion, hatred or contempt consists rather 



3. Jesus is Victor 239 

in the fact that without any sign of respect and with no chance of 
success they are summoned to make answer, forced to justify them- 
selves and pressed back upon the defensive. In it light is wholly and 
utterly light and darkness is no more than darkness, having no light, 
dynamic, authority or dignity of its own, existing and known only 
in virtue of its opposite, having only the substance and significance 
still left to it by this opposite. If we are to give an authentic account 
of the nature and power of darkness in this conflict, and therefore of 
the various incidents, hindrances and repulses which it brings, then, 
whatever else we may say, our first and never-to-be-forgotten affirma- 
tion must be to the effect that it is Jesus Christ in His Word who 
opens the conflict, that He is the Aggressor, that the law of His action 
is imposed on His opponent, and not vice versa. 

What is the origin of the anxious view of Christianity and the Church in the 
world which tempts us to take a similar and perverted view of the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ ? The answer is quite obviously that Christianity does not dare to 
understand itself in and in face of the world as the people or body of Jesus Christ 
and therefore in terms of His mission and prophecy, so that in the warfare im- 
posed upon it, it cannot be of good heart but must always take a tragic view of 
itself and its opponents, and might even make a bad situation worse by making 
common cause with the wolves of historical philosophy in relation to the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ, and thus constructing a relativistic picture which corresponds 
to its own anxious self-consciousness This is what Christianity should never 
do even though the diagnoses and judgments of historical philosophers on its 
own state are ever so imposing and even though its own uneasy conscience tells 
it that they are ten times right as far as concerns itself. If it admits this, it must 
still ask itself why it is that its uneasy conscience tells it that they are right only 
in so far as it must see and understand itself with such anxiety. And it must 
never in any circumstances transfer the anxiety of its self -understanding to the 
understanding of its Lord Whether its circumstances are good or bad, and 
whether it may have optimistic or pessimistic views concerning itself, the decisive 
thing is that its Lord is the man who in His warfare which it has to fight with 
Him and may really do so with good heart is the superior Aggressor, in face of 
whom darkness, however thick, is only darkness. Its regard must always be 
to Him as this man 

Our account must begin, therefore, with the attack opened and 
made by Him. In general, He conducts it quite simply but power- 
fully by seeing, addressing and treating the world, i.e., humanity as 
such, each individual man, and the whole creaturely world which 
shares the existence, activity and destiny of man, from a standpoint 
which is incomparable in critical force, namely, as the world which is 
reconciled to God, which is delivered from destruction, which in His 
person is loved by God and loves Him in return. Is this a bold illusion ? 
No, it is the sober truth. He takes the world as it is, i.e., as it is for 
Him and therefore in truth on the basis of the fact that, as the Son 
sent into it by the Father, He is for it, He intercedes for it, He 
has accomplished its reconciliation to God. He reveals, proclaims 
and attests to it that within it God has established and introduced 



240 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

His lordship over it and that it finds itself under this lordship. It 
does not know this, It cannot know it from any other source. But 
He knows it, and He tells and shows it to it. Self-evidently, this is a 
new and strange message. Even more self-evidently, it must hear it, 
and must hear it from the One who alone can guarantee it. Hence 
He Himself teUs it. What else could He say to it ? If He were to 
say anything else, it would not correspond either to what He is for 
it or to what it is for Him. It would not be in accordance with reality 
and therefore would not be the truth. He naturally tells it in order 
that it should hear and be obedient, accepting what He is for it and 
it for Him. But He tells it as the truth, and therefore independently 
of its hearing or non-hearing, of its obedience or disobedience. There 
may and must and will be a distinction between belief and unbelief, 
between the way of hearing and obedience and that of non-hearing 
and disobedience. But it does not lie in what He says, or in any 
ambiguity or limitation of His Word. This is quite unequivocally 
and unconditionally to the effect that in Him God has loved the 
world and reconciled it to Himself, that He has established and intro- 
duced His kingdom within it. He does not debate this declaration 
with it, for on what grounds could it make a judgment ? He simply 
shows that all things are as they are and as He says they are. He 
sets it in the light of the love of the Father and the Son. He illumines 
it as the world which in His person is drawn into this circle. Any 
pronounced or trivial indifference, any deep-seated or superficial 
suspicion, any foolish or malicious hatred, any more or less serious 
contempt which it may advance against him, is no doubt very menacing 
for those who are guilty of it. But it is always too late. It cannot 
outbid or qualify the declaration which He has made concerning the 
whole world. It cannot call in question its content. Even less can it 
change it. It cannot overwhelm or shake or shatter the rock of His 
declaration but can only dash itself in pieces against it. This is the 
attack by Jesus with which the struggle of light in and against dark- 
ness is opened. It is not merely a declaration of war. It is at the 
same time His decisive stroke in the war. It is a remarkable stroke 
in a strange and remarkable war. For the attack is that of the love 
of the Father and the Son. It is the attack of the grace of God. It 
is the attack of His affirmation of the world, of His generous self- 
giving to it, of His intervention for its salvation, of His pledging and 
guaranteeing of its life. This is what the Prophet Jesus proclaims to 
the whole world and to all men. It is with this that He encounters 
all possible or actual opposition. It is in this way that He met and 
attacked it long before it could rise up to defend itself, which is all 
that it can attempt in relation to Him. 

But to what extent is this to be described as an attack ? To what 
extent is opposition envisaged and provoked ? We are still speaking 
generally when we say first that in the Word of the grace of God there 



3. Jesus is Victor 241 

is attack to the extent that in it there is proclaimed and indicated a 
decisive, radical and universal alteration of the whole situation and 
constitution of the world and therefore a future very different from 
its past and even from the present in which this Word is now spoken. 
And this change is proclaimed and indicated as one which has already 
taken place, so that the only option this is why it is proclaimed and 
indicated is to take note of it and to orientate oneself by the fact 
that it has irrevocably taken place. Now that the grace of God is 
manifested in the world, the great divine Yes has been spoken, salva- 
tion and life have taken place and are revealed in the midst and this 
change has been accomplished, things cannot, must not and will not 
go on as before in the world and in human life, in its relationships 
and orders, in the interconnexions of men and their inner and outer 
existence. On the basis of this alteration they can and will tread 
new and corresponding paths. In and with the Word spoken by 
Jesus, like the last stroke on New Year's Eve, there strikes the final 
hour for the continuation of the form in which the history of the 
world has always run in the past and is still doing so in the present 
in which this Word is spoken. Yet this means that there also strikes 
the first hour of a new time, of a new history in a new form, which 
begins in the same present. There can be no trifling with the estab- 
lishment of the kingdom of God and the deliverance and reconciliation 
of the world as proclaimed to it in the Word of Jesus. To the con- 
tinuance of its history in the first form there is presented a command 
to halt behind which there is a corresponding and no less imperious 
command to advance. This aeon is at an end. The world and its 
relationships and orders, and man both individually and in inter- 
connexion with others, can have a future only in the new aeon 
determined by the deliverance and reconciliation accomplished and 
revealed and the lordship of God established and proclaimed within 
it. To be sure, we are still dealing with the world which God created 
good, and the man whom God created good. The faithfulness of the 
Creator has not failed. In this transition from the old aeon to the new 
literally nothing in His creation will be broken or extinguished or 
destroyed. His faithfulness will tnumph in the fact that in form it 
must and will undergo a total and radical and universal transforma- 
tion. Now that His grace is revealed, and the fulfilment of the 
covenant with man is declared in the Word of Jesus, to think or 
speak or proceed along the old lines is meaningless, unnecessary and 
dangerous, for there is absolutely no future in it. The only meaningful, 
fruitful and wholesome thought and speech and action are along the 
new way now disclosed and indicated by God's grace as Jesus speaks 
His Word. This total inversion is the content of His prophetic Word. 
" Now," is what this Word says, and in so doing it unreservedly 
distinguishes in the present between what is past and what is future, 
declaring what is past to be unconditionally and irrevocably ended 



242 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

and what is future to be unconditionally and ineluctably imminent 
and even pressing in already. " No," is what this Word says, and in 
so doing it forestalls the decision of those to whom it is spoken by 
confronting them with this accomplished inversion, this decision 
which is so pregnant for their own existence, as one which has taken 
place without any agreement or co-operation on their part, which 
their own decision in freedom must follow, but which it can only 
follow as a decision which is truly free. It is of this that the Word of 
the grace of God speaks as pronounced in Jesus Christ. We need not 
say for the moment who or what is attacked by this Word. The 
point is that it is quite unmistakeably an attacking Word which as 
such puts all other attacking into the shadows of supreme innocuous- 
ness. Someone is envisaged and challenged. And it is obviously 
someone who does not know, and presumably and quite understand- 
ably refuses to know, about the accomplished change which is to be 
realised " now " because it " now " gives unasked but without quali- 
fication a new direction, about the halt and advance which are com- 
manded with the event which is here proclaimed. It is someone who 
would rather close his ears as the clock strikes and not accept its 
message. This someone is roused from his rest and calmed in his 
unrest by the Word of Jesus. He is the goal of this attack. He is 
invaded and challenged. He is envisaged, and he cannot evade the 
fact. He is plunged into conflict and must arm himself for this 
genuine emergency. What are all intellectual, moral, artistic, social 
or political revolutions, all wars and world wars, but limited, 
particular and passing domestic squabblings compared with the 
revolution and conflict which are here accomplished and proclaimed 
in all quietness and friendliness, yet for all the friendliness with a 
final radicalness and universality ? 

But we must now try to examine more closely the character and 
significance of this attack. 

On the first and negative side, the Word of grace spoken by Jesus 
Christ means that in the present a whole interconnected and for all 
its differentiation unitary type of human thinking and speech, action 
and inaction, is described and treated as belonging to the past and 
therefore as without a future and quite impossible. It is to be noted 
that there is no criticism, blame, accusation or judgment. The Word 
of grace is not the Word of divine morality in conflict with human 
immorality. Only indirectly, secondarily and incidentally does it say 
of the being and attitude in which man finds himself engulfed that it 
is evil or bad or at least imperfect and in need of correction. What 
it is really concerned to say is that this being and attitude rest on a 
presupposition which is no longer present. Ignoring its removal, 
they are already outmoded, overtaken and can lead nowhere. Like 
the carriage-way on a broken bridge, they lead only into the void. 
What it says, therefore, is that it is folly to try to proceed on this 



3. Jesus is Victo* 243 

way as though nothing had happened. For something has happened. 
God has established His lorship on earth. He has reconciled the 
world to Himself. He has justified and sanctified man. He has 
taken him to Himself in grace. He has thus removed the pre- 
supposition of his previous action and done away with the man who 
can proceed along that way. The Word spoken in Jesus Christ tells 
us that this has happened and that there is thus no future for man's 
previous being and attitude. What kind of being and attitude are 
these ? They have many aspects, but one thing is common to all, 
namely, that we have here an action in which man continually 
but impotently and vainly regards himself as free, capable and 
strong, whereas this is no longer true on the basis of what has 
taken place for him in Jesus Christ. We shall describe this under 
two heads. 

He regards himself as free to take into his own hands and order 
for himself his relationship to God, the world and himself, to justify 
and sanctify himself, and therefore to be his own reconciler, renouncing 
any other forgiveness than that which he lavishes on himself or any 
conversion other than the different turnings which may seem to be 
necessary or desirable to himself. The Word of grace does not tell 
him that this is false, perverted, godless, inhuman and the root of 
all evil. Or it does so only indirectly and in the more radical form of 
showing him that what he is trying to accomplish is already accom- 
plished, that it has been done without him, against him and therefore 
for him, that it cannot then be done again, that he is no longer free, 
capable and strong. It tells him that he cannot help himself because 
he is already helped. It thus tells him that all his activity in this 
respect belongs to the old aeon, that there is no place for it now that 
this has passed, and that everything he might attempt along these 
lines is a futile snatching at the wind. Proclaiming quite simply but 
impressively the grace of God addressed to the world, it asks him 
what is the point of his life and thought and speech apart from and 
even against the grace of God, or what he thinks to accomplish by 
his action or inaction. The presupposition for this has been removed, 
and therefore further steps along this road are impossible and certainly 
cannot lead to any near or distant goal. 

A further point is that, in relation to the first delusion, man also 
believes that he is free to live in a suppressed but continually re- 
emerging anxiety before God, his fellows and himself. He believes 
that he is free to make of this anxiety a constant questioning, worrying, 
complaining, accusing and protesting against God and the world, to 
be constantly upset about something, to be constantly voicing his 
concerns and troubles, constantly to be engaging either forcefully or 
quietly in the corresponding quarrels, and more or less noticeably to 
extend these quarrels to those around. In this respect, too, the 
Word of God does not meet him on a moralistic level. It does not 



244 6g- The Glory of the Mediator 

merely tell him that things are not as bad as they seem, that he must 
not give way to anxiety and that he must not provoke or trouble 
others as he does. It tells him something far more basic, namely, 
that he cannot do this, that he does not have the freedom, capacity or 
strength for this anxiety and its explosions, since the only convincing 
ground for it is removed, destroyed and overcome in and with that 
which has taken place as the reconciliation of the world. Another 
has long since borne and borne away his anxiety. He is too late to 
think that he must still endure and bear it. He is too late with all 
that he thinks he should carry and express to his own sorrow, to that 
of others, and above all to the outraging of God. The Word of grace 
tells him that whatever he does along these lines is outdated, that it 
belongs to the old aeon whose end and passing mean that there is no 
further place for it, that it is a futile snatching at the wind. Pro- 
claiming the grace of God addressed to the world, his fellows and 
himself, it asks him very simply but most emphatically why he now 
acts as though it were not addressed to the world, his fellows and 
himself, and what right or authority he has for his sighing and pro- 
testing. The presupposition of all this has gone. The way on which 
it is done leads nowhere. 

A further point is that the man who tries to be his own reconciler, 
and as such, not without reason, falls victim to anxiety and the corre- 
sponding unrest, stills believes that he is free to adopt the alternative 
role, in lively or morose resignation, of a comfortable spectator of the 
good Lord and His world, of the joys and sorrows of others and last 
but not least of his own life. In other words, he can give perhaps a 
few scattered thoughts to those questions, limiting himself to what 
is most obvious and essential and for the rest waiting to see whether 
and how God will succeed with the world and people and himself, 
whether and how things will finally turn out right or not. In this 
respect, too, the Word of God does not address him on a moralistic 
level. It does not hiss out the question whether he does not see how 
cheap and indolent and careless and unloving and unworthy is such 
an attitude. It merely issues the quiet but definite challenge whether 
he has any freedom for it. It merely shows him that this attitude 
again is too late. For in virtue of the establishment of the lordship 
of God on earth in Jesus Christ, it is decided that there is no further 
place for the existence of a non-participant who is neutral towards 
others and himself, who accepts no responsibilities nor duties, who 
at any rate takes partial leave of absence, who is a mere spectator. 
Outside fellowship with the living God, and therefore otherwise than 
with Him, as a living participant in His action, there is no place for 
him to think or speak or act, or even to observe God, the course of 
the world, his fellows and himself. This alternative, too, belongs to 
the old aeon which will not return. The man who takes this way of 
escape is told that the indifference which he might finally choose as 



3. Jesus is Victor 245 

the better part is deprived of all presupposition, that it too, and above 
all, is a futile snatching at the wind. In this respect again he is softly 
but firmly asked by the Word of grace what he is aiming at, and 
whether he does not see that the very first step on this way is im- 
possible, quite apart from the fact that the way itself cannot lead 
anywhere. 

It is to be noted, of course, that the Word which says this is not 
the mere expression of a powerful religious movement or of the pro- 
found religious reflexion of an individual Christian, nor is it the mere 
word of serious preaching or sound biblical and theological instruction. 
Our reference is to the Word spoken by Jesus Christ, to His present 
declaration concerning these and similar presuppositions which have 
been done away in and with His existence, concerning the future 
which is blocked up in His person and work for all those who still 
try to live by such presuppositions. Our reference is to the Word of 
God as the revelation of the act of God in the light of which man is 
no longer capable of all these well-known basic attitudes, of all the 
thoughts and words and works of self-assurance, anxiety or unconcern, 
because the man who thinks that he has this freedom or capacity is 
long since dead and buried in this act of God and is thus no longer 
present as an acting subject. If we only see clearly for a moment 
that we have to do with this Word which is so distinct from all old 
or new, orthodox, liberal or neo-orthodox attitudes, constructions, 
ideas or theories, with the Word of what was done on the cross of 
Jesus Christ, then we cannot fail to see the attack which is launched 
in such depth on so broad a front. Against whom or what is it 
launched ? A better question would be : Against whom or what is it 
not launched ? But we can still leave this question unanswered. We 
may imagine that this Word will be experienced as an attack, and 
will thus provoke astonishment, hatred, scorn, head-shaking, com- 
plaint, ridicule, protest, contradiction, opposition, in short reaction. 
But before this reaction emerges and develops, it is already attacked 
by this Word. And it can develop only in relation to this attack, 
not from any substance of its own, nor by any other act of God, and 
therefore not with divine dignity nor radiance, but only in opposition 
to the one Word and light of the one God. Reacting against this 
Word, it lives only by the fact that this Word is spoken, and it would 
rather not hear it, or would prefer that it had not been spoken. From 
the very first, therefore, it can orientate itself only by this Word. 
The Word of grace as the divisive Word concerning what was and 
can be no longer has all the advantage as well as the glory of the 
aggressor in relation to all possible and actual opponents and all their 
efforts. 

But we must also consider what the prophetic Word of Jesus 
Christ declares on the positive side, namely, that again in the present 
there is intimated and proclaimed, as the only possible way forward 



246 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

at the end of all past ways, the future, or more strictly, the arrival, 
advent, manifestation and incursion, of a new, complex but unitary 
reality of human thought and speech, abstention and action, i.e., the 
presence of a new man. It is to be noted that what is announced in 
this way is not a new possibility which may or may not be chosen, 
but a new reality diametrically opposed to the old man who is now 
outmoded and removed. The new aeon whose dawn is declared by 
the Word of grace is no mere radiant idea, related to the reality of 
the old like the mirage to a caravan plodding through a desert which 
is only too real. On the contrary, it is the form of human existence 
and history which, arising or arisen already in the great transforma- 
tion of the world, is now the only reality, and can alone lay claim to 
the term, in relation to the form which perishes or has already perished 
in this transformation. No wonderful Utopian dream is recounted, 
nor is there proposed a clever and practically illuminating and helpful 
programme for the amelioration of the world or men either generally 
or in detail. No enthusiastic movement is initiated, nor is there 
accomplished a new organisation of the different forces for good with 
a view to creating for humanity both individually and collectively a 
more worthy future. The Word of grace tells us something incom- 
parably more basic and helpful because quite simply far more true, 
namely, that the future has already begun, not an empty future still 
to be fashioned, but a future already filled and fashioned in a definite 
way, the future of the man who lives here and now just as the old 
past was his past, the future into which he here and now has the 
freedom, capacity and power to enter as his own most proper future. 
This future has begun with the fact that God has fulfilled His covenant 
with man, that He has loved the world and reconciled it with Himself, 
that He has introduced the justified and sanctified man as the second 
Adam (who was before the first). " Behold, I have prepared my 
dinner : my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready " 
(Mt. 22 4 ) not just some things but all things, and not all things in a 
state of preparation but all things ready. The new man is born. It 
is worth noting that our Christmas carols tell us this in every possible 
key. If only our Christmas preaching would bestir itself no less dis- 
tinctly to say the same ! Since the enslaved man who was can be no 
longer, all that is needed is that he should now be the man he is. It 
is just as though a newly tailored and ornamented garment were 
ready and we had only to put it on, with no possibility of delay since 
the old one has already gone to the ragman and is no longer available. 
This new being of man, which is the only one to be considered now 
that the old is removed, has of course different aspects, though it is 
one and the same in all of them. We shall now attempt to describe 
it from various standpoints. 

Man is now free to set out from or continually to begin with the 
fact that his relation to God, his fellows and himself is ordered, and 



3. Jesus is Victor 247 

indeed ordered for the best, to the extent that in all these inter- 
connexions he can now live only by the justifying and sanctifying 
grace of God, but may actually and unhesitatingly do so ; that he 
can now live only by the remission of sins, but may do so quite un- 
conditionally ; that he can now live only in daily conversion, but 
may do so quite unafraid. He is free to let himself go, and not to 
try to take himself into his own hands again. He is free no longer 
to be the servant he was, and to be what he was not and could not be, 
namely, a child which has life before it. He is free to be himself in 
the hand of God, in Jesus Christ. He is this as He is already in the 
hand of God, in Jesus Christ. In speaking of this order, therefore, 
the Word of grace does not tell him that the humility possible in 
this order is pious and good and beautiful, that it is best for his own 
inner peace and for peace with his fellows and the world, and that 
with the help of God he should thus resolve upon such humility, thus 
converting himself, and living as another man in virtue of this self- 
conversion, as though as he were not already humbled and ordered 
and set at peace in the most salutary way. No, the conversion which 
it ascribes to him consists rather in the exercise of the freedom which 
he does not need to assume or give to himself because this is not 
necessary, since it has been already given in what God has long since 
done for the world and for his own salutary humbling and therefore 
for his peace and that of the whole world. The Word of grace simply 
tells him that the table is spread for him and for all, but that a few 
places his own included are still vacant, and would he be so good 
as to sit down and fall to, instead of standing about and cleverly or 
foolishly prattling. Everything else will then be discovered, or is 
really discovered already. With this positive disclosure the Word of 
grace speaks as it were from advance into man's present. 

A further point is that, in connexion with the order in which he 
is now free to be salutarily humbled, man is also free supremely to 
rejoice. He is also free to become finally serious and thankful, to 
obey, to think and speak and act responsibly, to believe and love and 
hope, to serve God and man. But above all, in a way which is basic, 
decisive and normative for everything else, he is free to rejoice. In 
clear and sharp distinction from the past which now passes, the future 
of the new man now breaking into his present is a time of rejoicing. 
It is as such that it is announced by the Word of grace, the image of 
the marriage feast being often used in the New Testament for this 
purpose. Naturally there is no impossible, or only rhetorically 
possible, demand that those who cannot rejoice on any real grounds 
should still do so. Naturally it does not merely raise a universal 
hymn to joy. What it does is rather to speak of the reason why in 
all circumstances man can go forward, not sadly or indifferently, but 
merrily. It is itself glad tidings as an indication of this reason, of the 
sun which smiles on us above. There is no third thing between care 



248 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

and joy, and therefore there can be no tarrying between them. If 
on the same ground, i.e., the proclamation of the reconciliation and 
lordship of God, care is expelled, the only positive option is joy, not 
as an empty and abstract cheerfulness, but as thanksgiving and 
obedience, and therefore as thinking, speech and action, as faith, 
love and hope, as responsibility and service, which correspond to the 
concreteness of this reason for joy and which on this basis are to be 
undertaken and executed with gaiety. Their deep seriousness will 
consist and be demonstrated in the fact that they are done in this 
way. And the test or standard by which we may know that man's 
joy as that of the new man really rests on this basis will be whether 
or not this joy radiates itself with the same self-evident necessity as 
it is his joy, whether or not it extends to others as to himself, whether 
or not in their case, too, it demonstrates itself at once in cheerful 
thoughts and words and actions. We may also put it like this. As 
the Word of grace is Gospel, having outmoded care and locked the 
door against it, it opens up the only remaining path to the future of 
an evangelical life. But this means a life which is nourished by the 
glad tidings, or rather by their theme and content. It means a life 
which also attests the glad tidings and their theme and content. 
It thus means a cheerful life in this twofold sense. It means the 
life of the new man already here in the present and standing 
at the door and knocking that it should be opened, yes truly opened, 
to him. 

A further point is that man is now free to range himself with 
others, to live in contact, solidarity and fellowship not only with God 
but also with the world reconciled to Him, and therefore with his 
fellows not merely as fellows but as companions in the partnership 
of reconciliation, as brothers and sisters in the fulfilled covenant of 
God. He is now free for unqualified participation in the cause of God 
and therefore in the cause of the world and men. He is free. Hence 
there is no question of an imposed duty, of the observance of a com- 
pulsory law which must be kept but with at least the mental reserva- 
tion that in some depth of his existence he can still be a camp-follower 
and therefore a spectator of the good Lord and other men and finally 
himself. No one wills that he should now participate. No one forces 
him to do so. He simply does. God has reconciled and bound the 
world to Himself, and him with the world, but only in and with the 
world. This means, however, that, in the determination thus given to 
the world, its existence and that of men concern him no less directly 
than the existence, will and action of God. No less directly I He 
cannot then be alone under a glass-case or behind asbestos sheeting. 
No, God has him now, and so, too, the world and men. For he has 
God, the world and men, and therefore he cannot be alone but only 
in contact, solidarity and fellowship both vertically and horizontally. 
He can now be a lord only as in his own place and manner he is a 



3. Jesus is Victor 249 

servant. This is his future as a new man as now disclosed and not 
just proposed or prophesied to him by the Word of grace. This is the 
given and only future intimated to him. For the fact that this future 
is given him as his only future is the work of grace itself addressed to 
him, his justification and sanctification as attested by the prophetic 
Word of Jesus Christ. 

In face of this positive side of the declaration it is quite natural to 
wonder whether after all this is not an illusionary idea, theory or pro- 
gramme, since what is here said to man is far more radical than any 
plans for his future development with which it might be compared. 
Indeed, the message of the coming of the new aeon and man is if 
possible even more strange than that of the passing of the old. In 
what conceivable form of self-understanding can man think of himself 
as one who is really the old man no longer but this new man with the 
child in the cradle of Bethlehem ? In face of this declaration con- 
cerning his free future, is he not constrained to laugh as did once the 
aged Sarah when it was told her that she should bear a son ? Or, if 
he takes the announcement seriously, has he any option but to under- 
stand it eschatologically as the description of his pure, supra-temporal, 
transcendent future to which he can only look forward with longing, 
thus agreeing in practice that it has not yet arrived and that the 
positive (and therefore the negative) declaration of the Word of 
grace has no validity for us here and now ? But we cannot dispose 
of this declaration so easily. Whether we laugh or sigh, the Word of 
grace does not say that man will be this new man, but that he already 
is. It speaks of his eternal future, but with the eschatological per- 
spective of the Bible, and therefore with no restrictive " only/ 1 it 
speaks also of the present irruption of this future, of the advent of 
the new man here and now, of his peaceful and merry life in fellowship 
within the present, as it also speaks of the present passing of the 
old man. Whether the one seems to be more strange to our ears than 
the other or vice versa, or whether both are equally strange, what we 
have here is a royal Word which as such we cannot shake or twist. 
It is not a word of religious, ecclesiastical or theological teaching. It 
is not a word of man at all. If it were, we would have to admit that 
it could express and formulate no more than an idea, and a highly 
illusionary one as the veriest child could see. It has validity, however, 
even in all its strangeness, because it is the Word of God spoken in 
Jesus Christ a Word which speaks of the end of the old man in the 
power of His cross and the coming of the new in the power of His 
resurrection : " Because I live, ye shall live also " (Jn. I4 19 ). For 
this reason, it is distinct from all illusions. All the realisms supposedly 
asserted against it are themselves shown to be illusions on this basis. 
And we have only to realise and accept for a moment that it is uttered 
on this basis to see what an attack is mounted by it. There is no 
more sharp and incisive attack than this. 



250 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

We might imagine the conversation to which it gives rise and some of the 
forms which it necessarily takes. 

The man to whom it is said thinks and says that he is not this new, peaceful, 
joyful man living in fellowship. He asks leave honestly to admit that he does 
not know this man, or at least himself as this man. 

The Word of grace replies : " All honour to your honesty, but my truth 
transcends it. Allow yourself, therefore, to be told in all truth and on the most 
solid grounds what you do not know, namely, that you are this man in spite of 
what you think." 

Man : " You think that I can and should become this man in the course of 
time ? But I do not have sufficient confidence in myself to believe this. Knowing 
myself, I shall never become this man." 

The Word of grace : " You do well not to have confidence in yourself. But 
the point is not that you can and should become this man. What I am telling 
you is that, as I know you, you already are." 

Man : "I understand that you mean this eschatologically. You are referring 
to the man I perhaps will be one day in some not very clearly known transfigura- 
tion in a distant eternity. If only I had attained to this ! And if only I could be 
certain that even then I should be this new man 1 " 

The Word of grace : " You need to understand both yourself and me better 
than you do. I am not inviting you to speculate about your being in eternity, 
but to receive and ponder the news that here and now you begin to be the new 
man, and are already that which you will be eternally." 

Man : " How can I accept this news ? On what guarantee can I make bold 
to take it seriously ? " 

The Word of grace "I, Jesus Christ, am the One who speaks to you You 
are what you are in Me, as I will to be in you Hold fast to Me. I am your 
guarantee My boldness is yours. With this boldness dare to be what you are." 

Man : " I certainly hear the message, but ..." In this perplexed and startled 
" but " we see the attack, and who it is that is attacked. 

For in all its forms, and in every nook and cranny, what is attacked 
is a something in man in which he thinks he knows about himself 
and the possibilities of his own future, and thus resists any other 
information concerning himself through the indication and disclosure 
of his real future. It may be supposed that, quite irrespective of the 
determinations of this real future, this something will necessarily 
offer radical resistance to anything of this nature. For under its 
domination man thinks that he can and should live in and by the 
realisation of what he regards as his possibilities. The new man as 
whom he is addressed by the Word of grace is not one of these possi- 
bilities and cannot be realised by him. Yet quite apart from all his 
possibilities, and in contradiction of his self-understanding, this new 
man is shown to him as his own truest reality. The something in 
man which compels him radically to reject this is attacked by the 
work of grace before it is aware of the fact. In self-preservation it 
has to defend itself. It is obvious from the very first that it has 
nothing original, no other reality, to oppose to it. The law of its 
action is dictated by the attacker and not vice versa. It can only be 
and declare the No to the Yes spoken by the Word of grace. However 
ferocious its air, the glory and advantage in the battle can never be 
on its side. 



3. Jesus is Victor 251 

For better or worse, we must now speak of that which is attacked 
and of its self-defence. It is painful to have to do this, but the time 
has now come to do so. 

All things considered, we do well to speak only of " something in 
man " which is attacked and forced on to the defensive. It is un- 
doubtedly man himself who is addressed by the grace of God and 
the Word of grace, who feels that he is affected by this attack, who 
in face of it conceives the corresponding thoughts, utters the corre- 
sponding words and makes the corresponding movements, who is the 
den in which there lurks the No to the Yes of God spoken in Jesus 
Christ, in which this No realises what it is when the light of God's 
Yes streams in, and from which it emerges to give battle in the 
armour and with the weapons of human emotion, argument, volition 
and action. It is man who is responsible and guilty and in mortal 
peril at this point. We shall have to consider more fully how he 
defends himself and what this implies for him. For the moment, 
however, our concern is with the prophetic office and work of Jesus 
Christ as such, and therefore with its historical relationship to the 
opposition and contradiction offered to it. There is no doubt that 
man is the representative and champion of this resistance since he 
finds a place for it. But it would be too simple to identify him with 
it and thus to say what Scripture does not say, namely, that he is 
this opposition and contradiction, that he is sin and falsehood. He 
opposes, contradicts, sins and lies. With serious enough consequences, 
he thus makes himself the battleground on which darkness resists 
with all its force the light by which it is attacked. He is dark and 
in darkness, and darkness is in him. He loves darkness more than 
light (Jn. 3 19 ). This is bad enough. But he is not darkness. The 
Word of God speaks of the grace directed to him. But God has no 
grace at all for darkness. He has not reconciled darkness to Himself, 
not made any covenant with it. He attacks it in His Word, not to 
spare and preserve, but to destroy. He does not attack man. He 
attacks the darkness which envelops and indwells him for man's 
sake, for his good, for his salvation. Man is his creature to whom 
He has sworn faith and with whom He keeps faith in the attack 
against darkness mounted in His Word. The world is the world 
which is really loved by Him in the giving of His Son. 

Thus it is something in man which is unmistakeably and un- 
equivocally attacked by the Word of grace, by Jesus Christ in His 
office and work as a Prophet, and which must defend itself accord- 
ingly. This resistance is necessary because it cannot bear what is 
here said about the passing of the old man and the coming of the 
new. Especially it cannot tolerate without opposition the urgent 
" now " of this message. It would be all up with it if the man around 
and in whom it has its being were to hear and accept and ponder 
this. It can only stop its own ears and those of man to this Word 



252 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

and sound. It cannot silence and therefore it must try to drown 
it. This is what it attempts. The assailant is thus faced by a 
defender, and the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ becomes a 
true history of conflict. 

How are we to define and describe this something in man which is 
attacked, and therefore the darkness which defends itself against 
light ? Since its being is supremely non-being, we cannot do it the 
undeserved honour of a positive definition. Yet we must bring out 
the fact that its being does not exist as non-being, and that it is related 
as darkness to light. 

It is obvious enough that the nature and therefore the power and 
action of this opposing something in man can be understood only in 
its diametrical opposition to the Word of God spoken to man and 
therefore only as its negative reflection. It is in confrontation by it 
that it has its place, in its negation that it has its basis, in relation 
to it, attacked, illumined, shaken and assailed by it that it appears, in 
conflict with it that it is what it is in the way it is. But we have defined 
and described the Word of God spoken in Jesus Christ as the Word 
of grace, in which grace expresses, attests and proclaims itself, in 
which God has loved the world and taken it to Himself and radically 
altered its situation, by causing the old aeon and man to pass in 
Jesus Christ and a new to come. If this is correct, it is also correct 
to describe that which resists in man, opposing the Word of God by 
which it is challenged, as that which resists the grace attested by 
this Word. It is that which will not have the free kindness of the 
free God, and therefore God Himself, and therefore the man who 
lives by His free kindness. It has no use for a liberation of man 
which is wholly and utterly the work of God, nor for a freedom which 
he owes wholly and utterly to God, and in which he has to live in 
fellowship with His freedom and can thus be free only in obedience 
to Him. It resists the cycle in which there can only be the giving 
of God on the one side and on the other the receiving and therefore 
the thankfulness of man. It hates this Giver, this giving, and this 
being given. It hates grace and gratitude. Or, in approximation to 
such positive terms as are possible, it desires a different reality of the 
world and man from that which exists in this cycle of giving and 
receiving. It wants a God or fate or Supreme Being which does not 
stoop to the being of man but is self-sufficient ; and it wants this 
God as a supreme symbol for the self-resting and self-moved 
sovereignty, autarchy and self-sufficiency of human being. It rejoices 
in the independence of this being and therefore in an aseity of God 
which confirms this, projecting it as it were into infinity. It wants an 
unloved world, loving only itself and therefore loved only by itself, 
neither sharing nor needing the love of another. For this it needs a 
loveless God, neither willing nor able to love another. It is the mortal 
enemy of grace in the pride which is perhaps its most positive feature 



3. Jesus is Victor 253 

the pride of a freedom which is not given but usurped. It has the 
splendour and power of this pride. It commends, develops and 
expresses itself as this pride. It is the darkness which is discovered 
and characterised as such by light, the opposing element in man 
which is attacked and challenged by the Word of grace and asserts 
and defends itself against it. Controlled, determined and possessed 
by this element, in its service and hire, as its representative and 
champion, it is man himself who does this by finding a place for it 
as it finds its own place in him. We thus deal with this element as 
we find it in man as such. However distasteful the theme, we must 
now try to consider some of the basic forms of the attitudes in which 
it tries to resist the Word of grace. It belongs to the nature of the 
case that we shall have to speak for the most part in mythological 
terms. For apart from all else, in this resisting element in man we 
are dealing with the ontic presupposition of all mythological thought 
and utterance. 

Its first and crudest, yet in its own way not inconsiderable, attempt 
is to resist and silence the Word of grace by a kind of factual demon- 
stration, by its own silent but tenacious clinging to existence, by its 
ignoring of this Word and what it says. The opposing element in 
man is assailed. The light of grace has shone into its den. It is 
exposed and wounded in its pride. Its dominion in man and the 
world is challenged. It must see that the situation has altered to its 
own detriment. It is forced to do something about this, to react and 
intervene. If it is not to yield, as it certainly will not, it must come 
out of its den and take action. And the simplest and most obvious 
thing to do consists simply in acting as if it had not heard the Word, 
as if it had not been spoken, as if that which it says has happened 
had not happened. In other words, it sets one fact against another : 
against the fact of accomplished reconciliation, of the fulfilled covenant, 
the fact of indifference to what this Word proclaims, to the divine 
Giver and His divine giving and gift ; against the fact of grace the 
fact of the calm but all the more effective continuation of pride ; 
against the fact of man's liberation from his old being for a new the 
fact that he can obviously continue to exist in his old and usurped 
freedom and make no use of the new freedom which he is given ; 
against the fact of the drowning of the old Adam the fact that the 
rogue is an expert swimmer ; against the fact of the new birth of man in 
the mystery of Christmas the fact that the old game of self-reconcilia- 
tion and anxiety and indifference still goes on, so that the news of 
the irruption of the new aeon with its peace and joy and fellowship 
is easily given the lie by this very continuation ; against the fact of 
the Bible, as we might say, the fact of the liberal newspaper ; against 
the fact of the " now " the fact of a " not for a long time yet." What 
cause is there for alarm ? The disruptive truth of the new and true 
reality will soon be blunted by the fact that the old familiar and 



254 ^9- ^** Glory of the Mediator 

supposed reality is still maintained and demonstrated against it. 
This will prove more lasting than the newcomer and finally win the 
day as though the latter had never been. It has only to display itself 
publicly like a rhinoceros in the sun and everyone will see that it is 
just as real as it always was. This, then, is the first reaction of the 
opposing element in man under attack. It does not consist in any 
special action, but is all the more illuminating for this reason. It is 
simply left to the facts of the case to show that there is no reason 
for panic. The wild beast does not even need to switch its tail to 
remove the threatened danger. It has simply to act as if the danger 
were not there. It has simply to continue in error, in stupidity, in 
wickedness, without love, according to the course of the world, as it 
always did and will. However crude this may be, and just because 
it is so crude, we are forced to ask rather anxiously whether the 
attack of the prophecy of Jesus Christ as the attack of light on 
darkness will not be arrested already by this first form of opposi- 
tion, so that even at best only an unending war of position may be 
expected. 

It is worth noting, however, that the element of resistance in 
man is not content with this. Does it know that it cannot survive 
in this way, that its supposed factual demonstration will prove to 
be mere appearance and illusion, that it cannot in this way resist the 
Word of grace as the Word of God ? However that may be, it 
certainly adopts another and more aggressive attitude as well as that 
of mute reaction. In its own way it, too, can think and speak and 
act. It can produce its own little prophecy in opposition to that of 
Jesus Christ. It can try to undercut this. It realises what is said 
by it concerning an accomplished reconciliation, a covenant made 
and fulfilled, a man justified and sanctified by God, the passing of 
the old man and the coming of a new. It has no thought of capitulat- 
ing, of adapting itself to this message. It would not be what it is if 
it were to do this. It cannot be converted. It can only be set aside, 
dissolved and destroyed by what is said. But it knows too well the 
greatness and threat of what is said to be content to meet it merely 
by passive resistance. And so it undertakes to introduce a counter- 
truth which will be innocuous, which will correspond to its own 
interests, which will be more obvious and more easy to see and grasp 
than that attested in the Word of grace, which will not have the 
sharp edges of this truth, which can be combined with its pride 
because with the certainty that there need be no revolution, that 
nothing old need pass nor new come, that the status quo may be main- 
tained, a being in smooth transition from an indefinite past to a 
similar future. The opposing element in man grasps at the possibility 
of a world-view. We need not go into details. There are many 
different world-views, magical, naturalistic, idealistic, sceptical, 
historico-political, aesthetic and moral. There are also religious 



3- Jesus is Victor 255 

world-views, and at decisive points all the others contain open or 
concealed religious elements. Common to all of them in their relation 
to the prophecy of Jesus Christ are the following basic characteristics. 

In all of them, as the term itself implies, man grasps (i) at the 
possibility of viewing, of making images of things and finally of the 
totality, from a certain distance. When the Word of grace is spoken 
and causes itself to be heard, it immediately removes this distance 
and thus leaves no place for man and his contemplation of images. 
It takes, in fact, the form of a forceful prohibition of images. To 
view the world is the glorious possibility of resisting this command 
and its urgency. Within this sphere the Word of grace itself becomes 
like everything else an object of contemplation, a detailed picture 
(perhaps called Christianity or the Church or theology) which, so far 
as such a picture can, may also speak at a suitable distance and among 
and alongside many others, but only in the context of a total picture 
whose author, in creating it, has taken good care that it will say 
nothing to affect him too closely. 

In world- views (2), as the word again implies, it is the world 
which is viewed, the great totality of an intelligere and intelligi more 
or less closed both in detail and in its nexus, of nature and history, 
of the multiplicity and unity of their phenomena, of the laws per- 
ceptible in them and the direction and meaning of their discernible 
processes. Even in world-views man will obviously take a central 
place, and under some name or other God can also be given an im- 
portant position. The Word of grace speaks of an activity of God 
in the world, and in so doing it speaks also of man in his relationship 
to this activity, which also entails in some fashion his relationship to 
his fellows and himself. A world-view is the glorious possibility 
of escaping the oppressive atmosphere of this triangle of God, fellow- 
man and oneself, of the ultimate decision which is here proclaimed 
with unbearable tension to have been already taken and thus to be 
in process of fulfilment. The more the world is viewed in a world- 
view, the more there dominates the temperate climate of a panorama 
in which there is much to see and study and consider and take 
seriously and compare and co-ordinate instead of just the one thing 
what poverty, limitation and one-sidedness ! which takes place with 
its exclusive claim in that triangle. 

In world-views (3) it is a matter of the supposed reality of general 
states and relationships and consequences, of the truth of finitely 
perceptible sequences and their infinite extension both backwards 
and forwards, of the truth of that which is always and everywhere 
the same and thus recurrent. The Word of grace speaks of a unique 
and highly particular event, of its bearing on all things and every- 
thing, of the negative and positive sign which with its occurrence 
and revelation and perception is set before all general truths and also 
as a concluding sign behind them. A world-view is the glorious 



256 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

possibility of relativising this like all other particular events and 
revelations and perceptions, of blunting the edge of its claim to 
absoluteness, by putting it in the series to which it belongs. Will 
not every proper world- view know the concept of the contingent, 
the individual, the concrete, the singular and unique, and find a 
place for it in its seeing and understanding? In this sense this 
particular event may thus be honoured in it. But every world-view 
will insist that it is unique only in its own way, and it will thus co- 
ordinate it with and interpret it by a corresponding and ultimately a 
comprehensive generality instead of adopting the crude and arrogant 
process which no world- view would ever do of setting the generality 
in the light of this particular event. In world-views it is the principle 
which counts and not any one thing, even though it were the most 
important. 

World-views are (4) doctrines which the man who views the world 
from a particular standpoint deduces from the many things which 
he has seen or thinks he has seen. Usually it will be a doctrine which 
includes some kind of practical ethics and perhaps politics, but it 
will be one that can be set against others, that can be compared 
with them, that can be debated academically with those who represent 
others, that can even be passionately defended or advanced against 
them. The Word of grace is not a doctrine of this kind. It is a 
declaration and a summons : the declaration of a decision already 
taken, and the summons to orientation by this, since only obedience 
or disobedience is possible in relation to it. It is a message according 
to which something has happened and a corresponding happening is 
thus claimed from those who hear it. A world- view is the glorious 
possibility of learning from this as from so many other messages, 
and from phenomena generally, from a particular standpoint, i.e., of 
comfortably criticising, modifying and finally formulating them to 
produce a doctrine which can be related to others and more or less 
cautiously adopted and expounded and marketed quite irrespective 
of what would necessarily happen if it were heard and accepted as a 
genuine message. A world-view is the art of avoiding the latter. It 
is the cheerful and consoling possibility of being content with talk, 
and basically with endless talk. 

World-views are (5) the attempt of man to come to terms with 
himself concerning himself. He thinks this necessary. He also thinks 
it possible. But how can he do it without viewing himself in the 
world and therefore without viewing the world, his world, the world 
from his standpoint ? He thus goes to work in his threefold capacity 
as observer, constructor and manager, bringing to bear his eyes, his 
capacity for apperception, his freedom of choice and will, his needs 
and aspirations, the particular conditions and tendencies of his age, 
his agreement or disagreement with the spirit of the time, his primitive 
instruments or his more or less developed and assured scholarship, 



3. Jesus is Victor 257 

his originality and loneliness or his association with others in the 
stream of a movement or orientation or perhaps even as the tool of a 
collective, but always he himself in sovereign mastery. The Word 
of grace has the dangerous force of an offence which strikes man from 
without and from a superior height, and in virtue of which he must 
only try to understand himself, and can only understand himself, as 
he is understood. Revealing to him this understanding, it sets him 
at the summit of the pass between what he was and what he will be, 
leaving him no possibility of retreat but only of advance. It does not 
say No to him, but Yes, and indeed the most radical, warm and un- 
conditional Yes that could ever be conceived. Hence it does not 
forbid him to say Yes to himself in his own place and time and 
manner. It allows him, however, to say to himself only the Yes 
which is an answer to the Yes said to him. This is its dangerous 
force. This is why it is an offence to him. A world- view is the glorious 
possibility of evading this offence, of fleeing from it. So long as 
man, viewing the world, is observer, constructor and manager, he is 
safe, or at any rate thinks he is safe, from this offence. 

This, then, is the second strategem which the resisting element 
in man employs as though the first, the passive resistance of factual 
demonstration, were not quite enough. He sets against the truth the 
counter-truth, the little prophecy, of world-views. It is obvious that 
this does not violate but reaffirms the pride which is the essence of 
this element. It is obvious that in its undercutting of the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ something may be accomplished. When is there not a 
powerful temptation to slide off from evangelical into philosophical 
thought and speech and attitude ? The essence of this possibility, in 
which all the aforesaid characteristics combine and which is identical 
even with their external marks, is that no world-views can find any 
place for Jesus Christ. Of course, they can find room for an abstract 
God and an abstract man, but not for Him, the God-man. Of course, 
they can find room for a supposed historical Jesus distilled out of 
the witness of the New Testament, or for a Christ-idea attained by a 
similar process of abstraction, but not for the living Lord, for the 
High-priest, the King and especially the Prophet Jesus Christ. This 
Jesus Christ is of no value for the purposes of a world-view. He 
would not be who He is if He were. And so He is absent among the 
detailed images and in the total picture of all world-views. This, 
then, is a not insignificant reason why it is always tempting to listen 
to the little prophecy of the various world- views. They offer plenty 
of pictures, panoramas, generalities, doctrines, human attempts at 
self-understanding. But His voice and this is the decisive reason 
why we so easily resort to them is not heard in any of them. This 
is why man is so urgently and almost compellingly invited by the 
resisting element within him to seize this possibility. And again we 
might anxiously ask what will become of the Word of grace when 
C.D. iv.-m.-i. 9 



258 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

this offer is so tempting. Can it really maintain itself against this 
defensive manoeuvre on the part of its opponent ? 

Is there worse to come ? Yes, one thing at least is much worse. 
The resisting element in man may realise that all its attempts at 
rivalry and competition are inadequate and futile. It may thus 
pretend to abandon its opposition. It may formally accept the 
Word of grace, though only in its own way and with a view to render- 
ing it finally innocuous. As we shall have to show in a special section, 
it may become religious. Nor do we mean only religious in a pagan 
or humanistic sense, but in a Christian sense, in the sense of the 
Church. It may come to life and vigour particularly in Christians. 
It may seduce them into building up and setting forward the work 
of the church of Antichrist. It may establish Christian communities 
and establish Christian worship and preaching and theology in a 
work which looks as though it is supremely concerned with grace and 
its Word. There may be much zeal, and great loyalty in big things 
and small, and genuine subjective sincerity on the part of the 
Christians engaged in the service of this resisting element. There 
may be serious and attentive reference to the Bible. The kingdom 
of God as coming and already come, the forgiveness of sins, con- 
version, the new life, the expectation of eternity, the viewing of 
time in the light of eternity, the Gospel as a message to the world 
all these may be declared and represented and emphasised and 
honoured in preaching and instruction and pastoral care, in dogmatics 
and ethics and other praiseworthy forms. And the name of Jesus 
Christ may not be entirely suppressed, but introduced as at least a 
third or fourth word which has always to be heard. What is really 
lacking in such a case ? It seems as though nothing is lacking. We 
may sigh when we come across the slight variations in ecclesiastical 
and theological movements, but we can console ourselves with the 
thought that all our different words ultimately mean the same thing 
and basically we are brethren. And, naturally, there is no lack of 
reference to the resisting element in man. With no attempt at 
demythologisation, some at least will mention and characterise the 
devil and his minions by name, asserting and branding their work 
both at home and more particularly abroad, but always discerning 
again that the bow of reconciliation, of the victory of Christ and 
therefore of hope arches peacefully over the whole. No, it seems as 
though nothing is lacking. The only thing is, perhaps, that for sharper 
ears, and ultimately and basically though perhaps unconsciously for 
all ears, all these very right and proper things, all these good words 
and songs and assurances, for all their seriousness, have a rather 
empty, tinny or wooden sound, as though we were listening to the 
lifeless clatter of an idly turning mill-wheel. We do not see anything 
evil, nor hear anything palpably false. It is just that a grey mist of 
puffed up mediocrity, of pathetic tedium and of important unimpor- 



3. Jesus is Victor 259 

tance lies over the whole. It is just that nothing really takes place, 
nothing really works even inwardly let alone outwardly, whether in the 
participating Christianity or in the world around. The church is still 
in the middle of the village. It is still a topic of conversation. It is 
still treated with great respect. But the silent and sometimes the 
vocal question cannot be suppressed either without or within : "I 
know not what it meaneth." What is it that has happened ? It 
is perhaps that the Word of grace, as proclaimed and championed 
and presented by Christianity and the Church, has been rendered 
basically innocuous. It is perhaps that it has been cheapened, so 
that it is declared cheaply and may be heard and had cheaply. It is 
perhaps that those who are charged to attest it have quietly given 
it a structure and character which assimilate it to the Christians and 
worldlings to whom it is addressed by the careful blunting of its 
rough edges and the suppression or softening of the strangeness of 
its declaration, so that it is now trivial and familiar, and the divine 
Yes has become curiously like the Yes which man is always about to 
say to himself, and it has become a kind of world-view, facilitating, 
supporting and even furthering man's evasion and escape from its 
message in perhaps the most respectable and unchallengeable form. 
Everything will still sound great and august and holy. But it will 
no longer be the indicative and imperative which impinge incisively 
upon the present. It will no longer give offence. It will no longer 
be engaged in attack. It will wound no one, and therefore it will not 
really help anyone. It will no longer spread unrest, and therefore no 
longer give rest. The most cunning of all the strategems which the 
resisting element in man can use in self-defence against the Word of 
grace is simply to immunise, to tame and harness. It is politely to 
take its seat in the pew, cheerfully to don the vestment and mount 
the pulpit, zealously to make Christian gestures and movements, 
soberly to produce theology, and in this way, consciously participating 
in the confession of Jesus Christ, radically to ensure that His prophetic 
work is halted, that it can do no more injury to itself, let alone to the 
world. May it not be that this most cunning of all defensive move- 
ments is also the most effective ? We speak in the conjunctive. 
Even this most cunning and effective of all the defensive movements 
has no guarantee of success. But whenever and wherever the pro- 
phetic work of Jesus Christ, the work of grace, is proclaimed and 
heard by us Christians, us Christian men, it balances always on a razor's 
edge whether its human proclaimers and hearers really have to do 
with this Word or only with the imitation whose clever and powerful 
author is the resisting element immanent and active not only in man 
generally but also in the Christian. Is there not good cause for serious 
concern at this point ? Yet how great is the superiority of the Word 
of God, which allows Paul and the context seems to indicate that he 
has in view a particular form of this possibility to write to the 



260 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

Christians in Rome (i6 20 ) : " The God of peace shall bruise Satan 
under your feet shortly " not immediately, but shortly (cV 



In what has been said enough honour has surely been paid to the opponent 
of the prophecy of Jesus Christ. The Word of the grace of God which Jesus 
Christ declares by revealing Himself as the One in and by whom God's name is 
hallowed, His kingdom has come, His will is done, man is justified by God and 
sanctified for Him this Word is met by a resisting element in man which will 
not accept at any price the news of what God has done in Jesus Christ to His 
own glory and for man's salvation. It is this which is attacked in the work of 
the prophecy of Jesus Christ. It is this which is forced and challenged to defend 
itself. It is in opposition to this that the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ 
becomes the history of a battle waged for man and on his behalf We have 
learned to know the stratagems and movements of this resisting element in their 
distinctive points The crudest is man's attempt to remain indifferent to the 
Word of truth spoken to him, to act as though nothing had happened, to bury his 
head in the sand like the ostrich. A more refined policy is to try to create an 
apparently water-tight alibi by the creation of world- views. The supreme and 
most dangerous is to immunise this Word by pretending to be a Christian adher- 
ent, confessor and preacher and thus escaping it the more surely. The resisting 
element in man knows what it wants And it also thinks it knows what to do 
or where to lead man in order to attain it. 

But have we really paid it enough honour ? Has it become sufficiently clear 
in this description that the history of the prophecy of Jesus Christ is not that of 
a sham fight but that of its encounter with a serious enemy, so serious indeed 
that all things considered its victory at every stage would seem to be unlikely 
and can be said to be sure only because it is the prophecy of J esus Christ ? More 
than this it is surely unreasonable to ask Yet we can easily deceive ourselves. 
For what do I read in a book published in 1957 by Gustaf Wmgren under the 
title Die Methodenfrage der Theologie (p. 38) ? " In Earth's theology there is no 
active power of sin and tyrannical power of perdition holding man in bondage 
and overcome by God m His work of salvation. There is thus no devil. This is 
a distinctive feature from the very commencement of his work " I make no 
complaint or protest against this scarifying report, alongside which one might 
set many others from his new book as from earlier writings But since I notice 
that he is particularly concerned about the devil or a devil, I might perhaps take 
the opportunity to make the following express statement. 

What has been defined and described in the present context as the resisting 
element in man is naturally identical with the being which is not systematically 
or consistently taught in Holy Scripture, but in the New Testament especially is 
frequently mentioned as the " devil," the pnncipium or pnnceps of darkness, 
Satan (the adversary), the SiajSoAoy (who throws everything into confusion), the 
evil or wicked one KQ.T egoxyv The devil certainly exists and is at work. We have 
to reckon with him We cannot possibly recount the history of the prophecy of 
Jesus Christ without thinking of him, for m his self-defence against it, having 
nothing more to oppose to the completed work of reconciliation, he finds his 
final sphere of operation. The ancient foe, or however we might describe him, 
cannot alter the justification and sanctification of man actuahsed in Jesus Christ 
But he still has space to resist the Word of reconciliation, to hinder its under- 
standing, acceptance and appropriation on the part of man It is to the story 
of his opposition in this sphere that we now refer. 

But if we think and speak of the devil in this context, we must keep clearly 
before us the passage m Jn. 8 43f which to the best of my knowledge is the only 
one which gives any exact information concerning his nature In these verses 
we learn that the " Jews " cannot hear the Word of Jesus because the 8j3oAoy, 
who throws everything into confusion, is their father, and their will is necessarily 



3. Jesus is Victor 261 

to do his lusts (tmdvptcu.). From the very beginning, from his origin, from the 
very outset (an apxys) this SiajSoAos has been a murderer (av6pa)iroKr6vos) , abiding 
not in the truth, there being no truth in him. Only as he tells lies does he speak 
of his own (e* T&V &MUV), manifesting his nature. He is nothing but a liar and 
the father of lies. The passage indicates at once that the devil and his work are 
indeed relevant to our present context. Those who have him as their " father," 
who are his children, who are dominated, tempted and led astray by him, cannot 
and will not hear the Word of Jesus as the Word of truth, but only resist it as 
did the Jews in this passage Even more important is the material fact that the 
one who leads man astray in this fashion, is from the very first and by nature 
nothing but a liar destitute of all truth and a hater and murderer of men. It 
is in this way and in this way alone that he exists, not as God, nor as man as 
God's creature, nor as even the lowliest of God's creatures, but in contradiction 
to the truth of God and His creatures, in a mode of existence which as such can 
only be a he and the source of all lies He exists only as the epitome of the active 
power and malignity of that which in and by itself is nothingness, of that in 
relation to which faith in God can have only the form of the most resolute un- 
belief. This has to be remembered when we think and speak of the devil. If 
we do remember it, however, we shall think and speak of him only reluctantly, 
infrequently and with great reserve Thinking and speaking about the devil 
can only result except when we have a handy ink-pot to throw at him in 
our turning our backs on him , and Luther would sometimes have used a much 
more expressive gesture Time should not be devoted to considering, con- 
templating or conceiving of the devil, or to concrete interest in him, for he is 
not worthy of it. He cannot really be given a proper place or locus in theology, 
just because he has to be reckoned with so seriously He can be mentioned and 
taken seriously only in such a way that he who is myth in person is demythologised 
and delivered up to ridicule Believing in God and not in him, theology bids him 
an immediate vrrayc. This is how he is treated in the Bible This is how he is 
in effect treated in J C Blumhardt's struggle with him This is how theology 
must handle him It must not be betrayed into regarding him otherwise than 
as the hypostatised falsehood which can only stand in a negative relationship 
both to God and man, and can therefore exist only negatively. For this reason 
reserve is necessary in thinking and speaking of him a reserve which will be 
manifested not least in the fact that neutral expressions like " the resisting element 
in man " are usually preferred to personal (though these are not debarred) in 
describing him What is essential is simply that his power and malignity as 
the alien force which dominates, seduces and deceives man, but is absolutely 
subject to God, should be known and revealed in the limits in which, as the light 
shines in darkness, it may be seen and known in its encounter with Jesus the 
Victor. 

This is how I have tried to treat the devil from the very first. This is how 
I hope to treat him in the future. And I must simply accept it as best I can if 
G Wingren really thinks that he fails to find him at all in my theology. He has 
many other ideas concerning me at which I can only shake my head in astonish- 
ment. 

Concerning the prophecy of Jesus Christ a final word has still to 
be said. This is only provisionally the final word. He Himself will 
speak the definitively last Word in His concluding return in glory. 
This Word does not belong any more to His work of reconciliation. 
It belongs already to His work of redemption. Hence we cannot 
speak of it except in the sphere of eschatology. What we can say is 
a provisionally final word which points to the definitively final in 
relation to the history of His prophecy which is our present concern, 



262 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

We have spoken of the beginning of this and also of its course as 
an attack with the resultant opposition. Its issue and end cannot 
yet be told because it is not yet concluded, the conflict being still in 
progress. Jesus is Victor already both in the beginning of His 
prophecy and in its present course right up to the present day. He 
suffers no defeats. He is never at a halt or in retreat. But He is not 
yet at the conclusion of this warfare which, so far as He and His 
action are concerned, is always victorious. He is already known by, 
because revealed to, those who believe in Him as the Victor who 
marches to this goal. But He cannot yet be manifested to the world 
or to them as the One who has completed His prophetic no less than 
His high-priestly and kingly work, and is thus at the goal. He is not 
yet at this goal. Light still battles with darkness, with the resisting 
element in man, with the prince of darkness. Place is still left for 
him his final place in and with the fact that the Word of truth 
must still be spoken and received in opposition to falsehood. Hence 
the light is still light shining in darkness. The victory of Jesus the 
Victor is not yet consummated. This is the limit of our sphere or 
circle of vision. We shall have to face and answer the problem of 
this " still " and " not yet " in the fourth and final sub-section of our 
present section 

But there is now needed a provisionally final word in respect of 
the certainty with which we may look back on the history of the 
conflict of light with darkness as so far recounted and with which we 
may thus take up the problem of its incompleteness. When we had 
to describe the power of darkness and the work of the resisting element 
in man, did it perhaps seem as though the cause of the Word of grace 
and therefore of the prophecy of Jesus Christ were seriously threatened ? 
Were not the probabilities against its victory ? Did we not see how 
great are the force and cunning brought against it ? Could we have 
painted any blacker picture ? Do we really see any way in which 
the strategems and efforts of the enemy can be frustrated ? Even in 
our strongest faith in Jesus Christ, are we not helpless in face of 
supreme indifference, of the constant jugglery of world- views, and 
finally and above all of the dreadful possibility of mock Christianity, 
of the church of Antichrist ? But if we are helpless, how can there 
be any certainty that Jesus not only is the Victor, but will prove 
Himself to be the victorious Aggressor in face of this apparently 
triumphant defence ? This is the problem of the incompleteness of 
the history of His warfare. We have to reckon not only with the 
triumphant attack of Jesus but also with what seems in its own way 
to be this equally triumphant defence of the enemy. What certainty 
can we have that this defence is succumbing and will finally do so ? 
What certainty can we have that there will be no reverses or halts or 
retreats on the part of the Aggressor ? What certainty do we have 
of His final victory ? In relation to the " still " and " not yet " 



3. Jesus is Victor 263 

which are our sphere and circle of vision there seems little prospect 
of the continuing advance and final triumph of Jesus. Of what use 
are all the positive things which might be recalled and said in relation 
to this " still " and " not yet " if we can have no certainty from the 
very outset that Jesus cannot and will not fail to be both the final 
and the continuous Victor in all circumstances ? The whole meaning 
of the conflict between light and darkness, but also of our being in 
the sphere of the incompleteness of this conflict, depends upon the 
fact that we have certainty concerning it, the prior, basic, direct 
and unconditional certainty of victory. We must now try to say a 
word on this. 

The decisive and comprehensive answer to the question of this 
certainty can consist only in a reference to the living Jesus Christ 
Himself, who as the One He is, if not known by all, is revealed and 
knowable for all, Christians and non-Christians alike, so that all 
without exception may be referred to Him with the demand and invita- 
tion to know Him. In Him it is manifested and therefore knowable for 
all that He and not the resisting element in man will finally conquer. 
As the living One, the Risen from the dead, He is not only Victor at 
the beginning but will also be at the end. We have said and must 
say again that He is not yet at this end when His prophetic work 
will be completed. His prophetic work is thus reconciliation in its 
transition to consummation in redemption. He cannot yet be 
revealed and knowable to any as the One who is already at the goal, 
but He can be revealed and knowable to all as the final Victor, i.e., as 
the One who as the Finisher of His prophetic work and therefore the 
Conqueror of the resisting element in man will achieve this goal, 
and thus finally prove to be the Victor He is. To know Him as the 
living One, the Risen from the dead, is to receive and have at once, 
from the very outset, basic, direct and unconditional certainty of 
the final victory which is still awaited but which comes relentlessly 
and irresistibly. He cannot be known as the One He is if this certainty 
does not immediately arise and persist. But if it does arise and 
persist as certainty of His final triumph, in the same direct and un- 
conditional way it includes the lesser certainty that He cannot 
experience any reverses, halts or retreats on the way to this goal, 
but that the vexilla Regis prodeunt. Every step on this way, being 
taken on the way to this goal by the One who will finally have con- 
quered as the Victor He is, means that in the continuous fulfilment 
of this transition He approaches this goal and therefore the final 
triumph. It means the constant increase of light in darkness. To 
know Him as the One who takes His steps along this way of His is 
thus necessarily to know Him continuously as the One who irreversibly 
and ineluctably marches forward to this goal. Again He is not known 
as the One He is if this certainty does not immediately arise and 
persist, namely, the certainty that He the Victor, who will also be 



264 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

the final Victor, marches forward to this goal at each moment and 
therefore at this very moment of His existence and presence. 

This decisive and comprehensive answer to the question of 
certainty must be properly understood if it is to be able to prevail 
and to be a genuine answer to the question. We shall have to try to 
develop it later. But it can be rightly understood in every develop- 
ment only if it is first and comprehensively and exclusively understood 
and taken seriously as a reference to the living Jesus Christ. This 
reference cannot be exchanged for or replaced by any other conceivable, 
and within its limits permissible, reference. 

Manifestly inadequate is, of course, the reference to an imaginable 
human goal and the discernible progress of the human race towards 
such a goal. The eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were very 
partial to ideas of this kind and the supposed evidences of progress 
seen by them. Our own century, which has less resemblance to this 
period than to the Middle Ages, has good reason to view such notions 
with less favour and even with disfavour. Things may alter again 
in the years ahead. But the alternation shows that with such ideas 
and evidences we are only at very best in the field of strong and 
fluctuating conjectures rather than certainties. Pictures of the 
race and its history cannot drive away the darkness which obscures 
its goal and way, or the resisting element in man (which for once let 
us call the devil), as a power which seems to be equal if not far superior 
to what is regarded as light. How can such a picture give us any 
certainty of victory worthy of the name ? It is not that there is no 
such certainty in respect of the goal and way of man. But if this 
is to be true certainty it can consist only in the certainty which is 
grounded in the knowledge of the Jesus Christ who intervenes and 
acts for the race, namely, the certainty of His future victory and of 
the victory which even in its futurity is already present and effective. 
There can be no reversal at this point. The victory of Jesus Christ, 
and therefore the serious victory of Light over darkness, cannot with 
genuine or tenable certainty be deduced from any victories of the race. 

Nor is it of any value in this respect to refer to the goal and way 
of the Church, of Christianity, of its mission and work in the world, 
or at least of its inner development. Encouraging and continuous 
lights may be seen at individual points in this sphere, but no certain 
picture emerges of what it will finally be as the people and body of 
Jesus Christ, or of its way to this goal, or of the assured attainment 
of its future, or of a sure advance towards it even in the best moments 
of its history, not to speak of the others. In this matter we are far 
more cautious, especially in relation to the success of missions, than 
were our predecessors fifty years ago. The outlook may become 
brighter again than it now is. But no sure ground is given us at this 
point. It would be mischievous ecclesiastical optimism to try to 
overlook the work of the resisting element in man even in the sacred 



3. Jesus is Victor 265 

sphere, or the anti-Christian element which continually obscures the 
goal and way of the Church even within Christianity itself and the 
various developments of Church history. There is, of course, an 
unconditional certainty of victory for the Church too and for its goal 
and way. But if it is to be genuine, it can be only the certainty which 
is received in the knowledge of Jesus Christ its Head, namely, the 
certainty of His victory in which He will finally cause it to participate, 
and already does so on its way towards it. Again there must be no 
reversal. There must be no certainty of the cause of Christianity or 
the Church which even temporarily or partially abstracts from the 
reference to Jesus Christ and looks to its own past or present. 

Inadequate, too, is the reference to the inner certainty of faith 
in Jesus Christ. In itself, this is a human work, humanly conditioned 
and limited, like any other. In it man can have only such certainty 
of his cause and this is not saying much as he can have of himself 
in his other works. The resisting element in man acts and reacts 
even in those who believe in Jesus Christ. And this means that 
this faith and its certainty, as all true believers know full well, is a 
precarious thing only too easily shaken to the very core, so that we 
cannot refer to it with any direct or unconditional certainty when it 
is a matter of the triumph of light over darkness. There is, of course, 
a direct and unconditional certainty of victory for faith and for its goal 
and way. But it is not at all the inner certainty of faith which is 
proper to man himself and thus to be confirmed by his self-certainty. 
It is the certainty which is proper to the origin and subject of faith 
and therefore again to Jesus Christ. It is the certainty which can be 
received only from Him and as the certainty of His victory, and 
which if it is genuine will have to be sought and found continually in 
Him. Again, there must be no reversal. The certainty of faith as 
such is not a certainty of victory which endures against assault. Our 
faith overcomes the world only as and because Jesus Christ does so 
the One in whom it believes, who is its basis, theme and content. 

These delimitations are necessary, not to discourage us, but to 
encourage us to keep to the reference which alone is of any real value 
in this question of certainty. None of the other references, as we 
have seen, is altogether futile. But none of them can or should be 
confused with or substituted for the reference to the living Jesus 
Christ Himself which gives us the only true answer to the question 
of certainty. None of them indicates the point where our helplessness 
in face of the machinations of the enemy is overcome. There is a 
true certainty of victory in respect of the goal and way of humanity, 
the Church and faith, so long as it is grounded like a rock in the fact 
that Jesus Christ is the Lord of humanity, the Head of the Church 
and the basis, theme and content of faith. It is neither humanity, 
the Church nor faith which radiates, capacitates, awakens and main- 
tains this certainty, however, but the living Jesus Christ Himself. 



266 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

He and He alone is the Victor who will finally triumph and who is 
even now relentlessly and incontrovertibly engaged in the transition 
from reconciliation to redemption, and therefore in triumphing. He 
is this for the race, the Church and the faith of those who believe in 
Him ; but He and He alone. To know Him is to know the coming 
and indeed the continuous and unequivocal victory of light over 
darkness which cannot be arrested by any resisting element in man, 
by any devil. To know Him is to know this victory with direct and 
unconditional certainty, with no unsettlement in face of the incom- 
pleteness of His warfare as Prophet of the Word of grace and with no 
doubt in respect of our being in the sphere and circle of vision of 
the " not yet " and the " still." Unsettlement and doubt can arise 
only if we try to have regard to other certainties than that of His 
triumphing. 

Whatever may be added to this decisive and comprehensive answer 
can consist only in developments or confirmations. It might be left 
as it stands. Its content, the reference to the living Jesus Christ as 
the source of genuine certainty of victory over the enemy, or rather 
the living Jesus Christ might be allowed to speak for Himself. But 
the point at which we stand is too important to allow even the im- 
pression to be given as Lavater's confession did with Goethe that 
we are in the sphere of a kind of magic, and that in this reference we 
have a mere assertion which cannot be established or explained but 
is dogmatic in the bad sense. It may be presupposed that our answer 
is cogent and compelling only when the living Jesus Christ to whom it 
refers does speak for Himself. It is not only possible, however, but 
necessary that we should consider what He who establishes certainty 
of victory says, and what we hear from Him. The certainty to be 
received from Him is distinguished from others by the fact that it is 
not blind, ignorant or amorphous, but a seeing, knowing and fashioned 
certainty which confirms itself and can be explained by those who 
have it. 

Generally speaking, it is an unconditional certainty of victory in 
the fact that it is clearly based on the unconditional superiority 
of Jesus Christ to His opponent, to the resisting element in man. 
In this context to know Him is concretely to know the superiority of 
His prophetic work to the being and machinations of the defender 
attacked by Him. It is to know the superiority of His light to the 
opposing darkness, of His truth to lying, to the liar and to all the 
liars dominated and deceived by him. It is in this superiority that 
He exists, that He is Lord of humanity, Head of the Church and 
basis, theme and content of faith, that He speaks as the Prophet of 
the reconciliation accomplished by Him, the covenant fulfilled by 
Him, the kingdom of God drawn near in His person. If He is known, 
it is in the superiority proper to Him as the One He is, in His uncon- 
ditional superiority. And this is the point of reference and foundation 



3. Jesus is Victor 267 

of the unconditional certainty of victory to be received from Him in 
respect of the history of His conflict. This unconditional superiority 
is proper neither to the race, the Church nor faith. Hence none of 
these can spread or mediate unconditional certainty of victory. But 
it is proper to the living Jesus Christ. Hence this certainty may 
really be received from Him, and from Him alone. This general 
truth must now be elucidated along three specific lines. 

The superiority of the living Jesus Christ which gives the certainty 
of the victory of His prophetic work consists first and quite simply 
(i) in the fact that He is the Word of God. He does not merely speak 
or attest or proclaim this Word, as is done also by faith, the Church 
and in a wider and indirect sense the history of the race and even 
the existence of the whole creation of God. He is this Word. It is 
as this Word that Jesus Christ in His prophecy takes the offensive 
and is resisted. This is the situation. And this is His superiority in 
it. To know Him is to know God, the Creator and Lord of heaven 
and earth, the One who is incomparably free and loving. It is to 
know Him as the God who speaks to us men, who enters into dealings 
with us, who establishes and maintains fellowship between Himself 
and us. It is to know His nature and existence, His power and mercy, 
His will which is done and His lordship which is established among 
us. It is to know all this in His action in the Word which is addressed 
to us, which comes to us, which does not leave us alone, which claims 
our hearing and obedience and therefore ourselves. God in person 
enters the battlefield in the living Jesus Christ and His prophetic 
work. It is not any light which shines in darkness, but the eternal 
light. It is not any truth which confronts the liar and his lies, but 
His truth 

This is what gives Jesus Christ absolute pre-eminence in relation 
to the whole race as such, to the Church in all its members and works, 
and to even the most profound and serious Christian faith. As these 
are all in their own ways the creatures of God, they all have to do 
with God, and above all God has very much to do with them. But 
neither the race, the Church nor faith is the Word of God. Jesus 
Christ is This gives Him immediate superiority. It is for this reason 
that the reference to Him cannot and must not be confused with nor 
replaced by the reference to the race, the Church or faith. 

But as the Word of God He has even more imposing superiority 
in relation to the enmity which He encounters and therefore the 
resisting element in man which has nothing whatever to do with God 
nor God with it, which is not in any sense the creature or work of 
God but only a devastating interposition between Him and the world, 
which can be addressed only as nothingness. 

We shall illustrate by referring to the last and worst of its machinations, 
namely, the construction, maintenance and prosecution of a sham church in 



268 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

which it may have dealings with man and be active even in the Christian as the 
adversary and opponent of the grace of God We can hardly exaggerate the 
serious nature of this threat. But no matter how great, when it is measured by 
the Word of God spoken in Jesus Christ, it obviously lacks all greatness, all 
power and significance of ultimate or even provisional account. Are not all 
lies, and therefore even the worst, the Christian lie, unsubstantial, and will not 
this emerge sooner or later, and basically at once, when they are confronted by 
the truth of God which they can neither imitate nor disarm ? But the synagogue 
of Antichrist in all its forms is confronted with this truth when it is attacked by 
the living Jesus Christ and tries to deploy all its forces against Him. How can 
it win the day in this battle ? Must we not ask indeed whether the game which 
it plays with so much power and cunning is not finally more dangerous to itself 
than the One it attempts to resist ? Can it really do itself any lasting good by 
trying to use that which is Christian as its mask and instrument ? May not 
this most powerful machination recoil upon itself "> The Christian things behind 
which it hides, and which it tries to turn against Jesus Christ, can still maintain 
in hidden form something of their own distmctiveness as they are misused by it, 
and suddenly revolt against their misuse, escaping from the Babylonian captivity 
in which they are held and maintaining their freedom against the power and 
cunning of the tyrant. Within the anti-Christian church as well as against it, 
the living Jesus Christ Himself can suddenly emerge in all the superiority of the 
Word even from the Bible which it has suppressed and falsified, even from its 
corrupt traditions and liturgy and practice, even from all its secret or blatant 
perversions (e g , from the text of even the most dreadful preaching), and greatest 
honour can thus accrue to Him where the greatest dishonour is done More than 
once things have happened in Church history in such a way that, against all the 
clever intentions of the enemy in the attempted prosecution of his cause under 
Christian cover, the voice of Jesus Christ and therefore the Word of God have 
quite unexpectedly rung out, and there have necessarily been strange resurrec- 
tions and revivals of the true Church in the midst of the false If we are properly 
to consider the superiority of Jesus Christ as the Word of God, have we not to 
reckon with the fact that this may happen at any moment even when the assault 
of Antichrist seems to be at its most serious either on a larger scale or a smaller ? 

There can be no doubt that the relation between the Assailant who 
is the true Word of God Himself and the defender who is simply the 
liar is so unequal that those who know the former can have nothing 
less than the most complete certainty of victory even in respect of 
the as yet unconcluded conflict of light with darkness. If they know 
anything at all, they know that a single saying of this Word can and 
will fell the one who opposes it, the axe being already laid to the 
root of this tree. 

The superiority of the living Jesus Christ which radiates and 
mediates certainty of victory consists (2) in the fact that He is the 
Word of the act of God. He is not the mere expression, or reflection, 
or manifestation of an idea of Godhead, but the eloquent work in 
which the transcendent God, to take the world and man to Himself, 
to make common cause with His creation, has Himself come into the 
world as a human, creaturely, historical factor, and as such has dealt 
and still deals towards us and with us in grace. To know Him is to 
know Him as the claim of this act of God which has taken place in 
Him, And as this qlaim of the act of God which has taken place 



3- Jesus is Victor 269 

in Him, He stands in conflict with the resisting element in man. The 
latter tries to withstand and evade this claim, the light of this life, 
the truth of this reality. This is the situation. It points to the 
superiority of Jesus Christ from a new angle. 

A first point which is clear is His precedence on this side, too, over 
humanity, the Church and even the most vital faith in Him. These 
can, of course, acquire and have a share in the expression of the act, 
the reconciling act, of God. They may be summoned to attest it, 
but only because its expression has first taken place, and still takes 
place, authentically and originally in Jesus Christ Himself. It is not 
they which do what is certainly expressed through their ministry. 
They cannot, then, give any direct or reliable information of their 
own concerning it. To the extent that they are entrusted and com- 
missioned with the task of witnessing to it, their witness even at 
best can be only secondary, indirect and apparently very broken. 
We are still referred to the self-witness of the One who has done that 
to which they bear testimony. In itself and as such, therefore, their 
witness can mediate no certainty of victory. Jesus Christ can and 
does as He expresses the divine act of reconciliation accomplished in 
Himself. 

But even more clear on this side, too, is His superiority to the 
contradiction and resistance which He meets. For what stands 
behind the resisting element in man in virtue of which it tries to 
compete with Him as the Word of the act of God ? It certainly exists 
as a kind of expression. But it does not express any act in the true 
sense, not even a creaturely act which would give to what it expresses 
at least the power of creaturely life and creaturely reality. From the 
great vacuum of falsehood it has nothing to declare. It is a hollow, 
empty word. And it is trying not merely to rival the word of a 
creature but to compete with the Word of God, to oppose the prophecy 
of God Himself. Again, the act of God accomplished and expressed 
in Jesus Christ is the justification and sanctification of man. It is 
thus the act m which man, whether he realises it or not, is objectively 
alienated, separated and torn away from this resisting element in 
him, because he is already set in the liberty of the children of God. 
It is the act in which the right of domicile and lordship in man is 
once and for all taken from this element, so that the ground is objec- 
tively cut from beneath its feet. It is the Word of this act of God 
which it ventures to contradict and withstand. What can and will 
become of it in this conflict and collision ? What has Jesus Christ 
really to fear from this adversary as the Word of this act of God ? 

We may illustrate this aspect of the situation by considenng its attempt to 
construct world-views, i e., its attempt to make it easy and desirable for man to 
withstand the Word of grace, to evade the decision which it requires, to relativise 
it in its particularity, to conceal its practical claim under harmless theory, and 
to understand and reconcile himself, by the offering of all kinds of pictures, 



270 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

panoramas, general truths, doctrines and human self-interpretations. This 
is a vast and influential undertaking, yet one which for all its splendour is from 
the very first foredoomed to failure m relation to what is to be attained by means 
of it and in relation to the One who is to be warded off and arrested by it. In 
distinction from the Word of the grace of God, world-views are only ideas and 
ideologies which must make themselves as impressive as they can. They are 
only analyses, insights, explanations and interpretations of the reality of man, 
the world and even God, which may perhaps be attempted and carried through 
with great perspicacity and profundity from particular standpoints. But they 
are not expressions or authentic self-declarations of this reality. They are not 
words which have directly the power of the truth of this reality Even at best 
they are only thoughts and words concerning it which are relatively and partially 
apposite. In particular, they are not words or expressions of the reality of 
divine action. They are not self-documentations of the life created and main- 
tained by God. They are not words or expressions of the act of love and grace 
and reconciliation. They are not self-revelations of the divinely established 
peace between God and the world, of the glory of God and the salvation of man 
in the covenant instituted and fulfilled between them. Is not the deception 
attempted by the adversary in this enterprise apparent at once when we realise 
that he ventures it in this conflict and in face of this Assailant ? What has he 
to set against the living Jesus Christ ? However glistening the soap-bubbles 
which he blows up in the attempt to deceive man concerning himself, what can 
he accomplish against Him ? When we consider against whom he is contending, 
how can we be seriously alarmed at his efforts even in relation to the present 
state of the conflict, let alone its final outcome ? 

There can be no doubt that where we have on the one side the 
Word of the act of God, of this act of reconciliation (and the living 
Jesus Christ is this Word in His prophecy), and on the other empty 
word of falsehood (and this is the weapon and power of the resisting 
element in man), the relation between Aggressor and defender in this 
conflict is so unequal that in relation to it there can and must be 
the fullest certainty of victory, and it would be sheer folly not to find 
a place for it. From this standpoint, too, we may confidently and 
very definitely affirm that one little word will fell the adversary. 

For an appreciation of the superiority of the living Jesus Christ 
which awakens this certainty, we must look in yet another direction. 
His superiority consists (3) in the fact that His prophecy as the Word 
of God revealing the act of God appeals directly to the real man. It 
appeals directly. That is to say, it overlooks and by-passes, as it 
were, the resisting element in man, the devil. It disregards the fact 
that man is tempted, deceived, controlled and possessed by the devil. 
It does not recognise that man has given himself to the service of 
falsehood. It appeals to the real man, to the man whom it may and 
can address directly, and irrespective of the resisting element in him, 
because even as its slave, even under its domination, he has not 
ceased and cannot cease, in relation to the illusion and deception to 
which he has fallen victim, properly and essentially to be real man, 
the man whom God created and whose divinely created nature has 
not perished even in the alienation in which he now exists, the man 
who in this reality of his is still the nearest and most direct object of 



3- Jesus is Victor 271 

the love of his Creator. The reconciliation which in the Word of 
Jesus Christ is shown to have taken place in Him is, as man's sancti- 
fication no less than his justification, not merely the actualisation of 
the freedom and the establishment of the right and claim of God in 
face of this real man, but also the gift of the freedom and the estab- 
lishment of the right and claim of this real man in his relationship to 
God. Negatively formulated, reconciliation is God's solemn non- 
recognition of the incident which separates Himself from man and 
man from Himself. Positively formulated, it is God's solemn recogni- 
tion of the faithfulness with which He loves man as His creature and 
confesses the determination of His creature to love Him in return. 
And the Word of divine reconciliation grounded in the existence and 
crucifixion of Jesus Christ and uttered by Him as the Resurrected 
is God's solemn proclamation of this non-recognition of the incident, 
of this scorn of the devil, of this demonstration of the divine faith- 
fulness in which He does not cease to draw real man, notwithstanding 
his self-alienation, into the covenant of peace with Himself, and to 
treat him seriously as a partner in this covenant. This real man is 
thus directly the one who is intended, addressed and taken seriously 
m the Word of Jesus Christ as the Word of reconciliation. It is 
to him that this Word appeals directly quite irrespective of the 
resisting element in him. It can sound alien only to the alien element 
in man, to man in his self -alienation. But for all that it is so unex- 
pected, for all that it does not arise from within man but comes from 
without, from a great height and distance, it reaches and strikes the 
real man as a call from the Father's house, from the home to which 
he belongs and which belongs to him, as a summons from his native 
place, as the gift of his freedom and the ascription of his right and 
claim to be there and not elsewhere, to be a resident in his own land 
and not a stranger abroad. The great superiority of the prophetic 
Word of Jesus Christ is that it is this call to the real man. It is with 
this superiority that He attacks the resisting element in man and is 
necessarily opposed by it. This is the situation. 

In this respect again we see first the pre-eminence of Jesus Christ 
in relation to anything which might be said to man by the history 
of the race, or the Church, or faith. For even though these have 
voices and can speak, how can what they have to say to man appeal 
directly to what he really is, and not therefore to the various masks 
or costumes with which he clothes himself and thinks and maintains 
that he is identical, but to the real man whom God has created and 
loved and who is not at all identical with the external appearance in 
which he exists ? In the history of humanity, even in the history and 
present activity of the Church, even in faith, even and especially in 
personal faith, the speaker is always the man who is burdened by 
the resisting element in him, and he is always speaking to the man 
whom he cannot perceive or reach except as similarly burdened. 



272 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

Even if he is given a word, this word of man as such has no power 
to penetrate the twofold armour of the resisting element in himself 
and the other and to strike him where he is truly and properly man, 
namely, man for God, and before God, and therefore in truth. Hence 
we men and even we Christians usually talk past one another except 
when a miracle occurs. We do this even when we are talking to 
ourselves. We cannot, then, derive certainty, the certainty of victory, 
from any genuine superiority in us. But Jesus Christ in His Word 
can and does. He is the Neighbour who can and does really speak 
to the other as Neighbour to neighbour, and therefore in this sense, 
too, He is superior and radiates certainty. For to radiate certainty 
there is needed the power to appeal to the real man. He and He 
alone has this power. Hence in the question of certainty we are 
warned from this angle, too, that the reference to Him must not be 
confused with or replaced by any reference to the human race, the 
Church or faith. 

But our present concern is with His superiority to the resisting 
element in man. This, too, is palpable. We maintain that this element 
is something in him which possesses and dominates him, which power- 
fully and cunningly induces him to attempt all those machinations 
against the Word of grace. But we insist that it is not man himself, 
the real man. It can and does alienate him from himself, so that he 
no longer knows himself in his reality but as an only too docile negator 
of the Word of God. But it cannot destroy him, or as it were consume 
him, or transform him into a devil. Nor can man himself do this, 
even though he renders the resisting element in him devoted and 
zealous service and perhaps makes a compact with the devil in 
his own blood. The real man, created good by God, loved by Him, 
and ordained to love Him in return, remains alien to the resisting 
element in him and is opposed to it even in the worst forms of the 
slavery in which he has become its victim. However oppressed he 
may be, however little he may know himself, however much he may 
have foolishly or deliberately yielded to the alien power, he is still 
the man he is, awaiting his hour and somewhere straining at his 
bonds. The Word of grace is for this man. And this man is for the 
Word of grace. Between these two there is an original and inde- 
structible agreement. And it is in this agreement that there consists 
from this third standpoint the superiority of the One who speaks this 
Word in face of the whole world of opposition and contradiction 
brought against Him. The resisting element in man is a strong power 
and enjoys very great and fateful successes. But it cannot boast of 
agreement with the real man nor of his agreement with it. It cannot 
work in the power of this agreement. Jesus Christ can and does. He 
works not only in the power of the Word of God which is the Word 
of His reconciliation, but also because it is this in the power of its 
agreement with the real man and as an appeal to him. It is on this 



3. Jesus is Victor 273 

basis that He assails the resisting element in him. It is in this power 
that He ignores it, treating it with scorn. He will have dealings only 
with the real man, and He does so in superior power. He speaks on 
the well-founded presupposition that this real man, even though he is 
oppressed and does not know himself, is on His side whether he 
realises it or not, having his natural Covenant-partner in God as 
God has in him, the creature of God. What can and will become 
of the resisting element when this is the situation ? What has Jesus 
Christ to fear from His encounter with it ? 

By way of illustration we may again consider the defensive measures adopted 
by it, or by the man whom it has dominated and deceived. And in this case we 
turn to the crudest which is also the most massive, namely, that which causes 
man to set against the call of God the fact that, instead of meeting it with active 
counter-measures, he simply takes no notice, excusing himself as absent. We 
have seen that his resistance to the Word can take the form of simple indifference, 
lack of interest, unconcern, neutrality. Will this form of defence succeed ? 
Well, there can be no denying that indifference is possible and practicable, 
because subjectively or objectively more or less well founded, not only to religion 
in general but also to Christianity both as a whole and in each of its manifesta- 
tions, as, for example, the public worship of God or theology Nor need we suppose 
that this is merely a phenomenon of the last centuries and particularly of our 
own period. There is also, and always has been, a no less widespread indifference 
to such things as politics, art and philosophy. Indifference to Christianity, too, 
is quite possible, although it has its limits and may quite unexpectedly whether 
for good or evil turn into its opposite, as has happened in the last decades in 
spite of all the conjectures which might have been made in the eighteenth century 
and the prophecies everywhere noised abroad in the nineteenth. Our present 
reference, however, is not to indifference to Christianity ; it is to indifference to 
the Word of God spoken in Jesus Christ. And of this we may say quite definitely 
that it is a defensive manoeuvre which in spite of every appearance to the 
contrary can have no prospect of success. For the real man is not uninterested 
or unconcerned or indifferent or neutral in face of this Word. Jesus Christ 
appeals to the real man on the self-evident and well-founded assumption that he 
is not identical with the resisting element in him, that he cannot identify himself 
with this, that he is really in basic agreement with what He has to say to him, 
however great his entanglement in opposition and contradiction to it. He may, 
of course, ignore or refuse to answer it like an unwanted call. He may be won 
over to this attitude by the resisting element in him. He probably will be, and 
this applies in no little measure to the Christian too. But the fact that he ignores 
it does not mean that he is dead to it, nor does his refusal to answer it mean that 
he is not at the place where it visits him, i e., not at home and within its reach. 
Man would have to cease to be what he is if h were to be able to escape the reach 
of the Word of God and to attain an actual or let us say for once an ontic 
indifference or neutrality to the Word of God, or to allow himself to be forced 
into this by the resisting element in him. He can do many things, but this is 
something which he cannot do. As the man he really is, he is on its side. He 
can only play at indifference falsely, hypocritically and in pretence. He does this. 
He does it persistently. But the very persistence with which he does it bears 
witness that he is not so uncommitted as he pretends to be. We must not over- 
look the advantage which the Word of God spoken in Jesus Christ enjoys against 
this stratagem of its opponent as well. 

In considering this third aspect, too, we may conclude that the 
conflict in which the living Jesus Christ in His prophecy is still engaged 



274 6 9- The Glor y f the Mediator 

is an unequal one for all that it seems to be and is so serious. The 
relation between Assailant and defender is such that there can be no 
doubt as to the issue. As the Word of God spoken in Jesus Christ 
is not against man but for him, so man for his part, as the one he 
really is, cannot be radically against the Word spoken to him but only 
for it. The battle continues, but it bears this aspect. Again it is 
the case that one little word can fell His adversary. From this angle, 
too, there is certainty, the perfect certainty of victory, in relation to 
the issue of the battle and the course which it takes towards this issue. 
This, then, is what must be said in development and confirmation 
of the decisive and comprehensive answer to the question of certainty 
in relation to the final and continuing victory of Jesus Christ as the 
Prophet of the Word of grace. There is need that we should expressly 
recall the content of this decisive and comprehensive answer. It 
consists in the reference to the living Jesus Christ Himself, to His 
superiority in the campaign launched and conducted by Him, and 
therefore to His self-witness which awakens, establishes, creates and 
maintains certainty, the certainty of victory. He Himself is and 
gives the guarantee that He will triumph, and is already engaged in 
triumphing. Even what we have tried to say in development and 
confirmation of this answer must not be understood as a substitute 
for the guarantee which is given in and with Jesus Christ Himself, 
but only as an attempt to explain and concretely to describe it. No 
exposition of this basic text can replace it. None of the three lines 
of presentation along which we have explained the superiority of 
Jesus Christ and the certainty awakened by it can pretend to be 
this superiority or to give this certainty in itself. We have to con- 
sider to what extent Jesus Christ does in His warfare represent and 
give Himself in a superiority which gives rise to certainty. But we 
must always expressly presuppose that to do this is His own work 
and not that of our own explanatory and confirmatory argumentations. 
These can be effective, illuminating and helpful only in so far as they 
point to Him and He Himself places Himself behind them in the 
superiority which is His alone, developing, confirming and explaining 
Himself, Himself awakening, establishing, creating and maintaining 
certainty, Himself saying what even the best theology can only 
stammer after Him, namely, what He is and will be as Prophet, as 
the Word of His work, as what He will show Himself to be even here 
and now, Jesus the Victor. 

4. THE PROMISE OF THE SPIRIT 

We must now draw to a close this first section of the third part 
of the doctrine of reconciliation. In it our concern has been and is 
with the christological basis, content and horizon of the whole matter 
under consideration. We remember the title under which our 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 275 

reference to the basis, content and horizon of this whole matter is 
set. The Mediator is Jesus Christ who, as very God humbled to be 
man and made like us men, and as very man exalted to fellowship 
with God and made like God,as the Accomplisher of reconciliation, as 
the Fulfiller of the covenant, is in His own person and work both the 
Representative of God to man and the Representative of man before 
God, and therefore (Eph. 2 14 ) peace between the two. The glory of 
this Mediator consists in the fact that He not only is what He is as 
such, and does what He does as such, but that He is also revealed, 
i.e., reveals Himself, as the One He is and in what He does. Here 
again, therefore, we have both a being, namely, that He is revealed, 
and an action, namely, that He reveals Himself. 

The same distinction and conjunction are to be seen in the first two parts 
of the doctrine. In the first He is the true Son of God who became what we are, 
going into the far country, and as such He suffers as the Judge judged in our 
place, as the High-priest offering Himself as the sacrifice. In the second He is 
the true Son of Man returning to His Father's house and He acts as such, namely, 
as the royal man who is the object of the pure divine good-pleasure. Similarly 
in this third part we have now seen that He is revealed, that He is the light of 
life (as we have shown in the second sub-section under this title), but that He 
also reveals Himself, Himself shining as this light (as developed in the third 
sub-section under the title " Jesus as Victor "). 

In this twofold consideration we have done justice to the intention behind 
the distinction of the older dogmatics between the doctrine De persona and that 
De officio mediatons. The only thing is that in the first two parts we have not 
dismembered the two Loci as the older dogmatics did by treating them separately, 
but have conjoined as well as distinguished them, explaining not only the action 
and work of Jesus Christ by His person and being, but also His person and being 
by His action and work. It is for this reason that in the preceding sub-section 
we have had to lay such emphasis on the historicity of the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ and finally to recount its history so far as it can be recounted. Yet even 
in doing this we could not avoid constant reference to the being of this acting 
Prophet, to the living Jesus Himself as the primary Subject of the events to be 
narrated. It is as He shines, and shines victoriously, that He is the light of life. 
And He is the One who shines victoriously because He is the light of life. 

From the christological sphere in the narrower sense as thus 
traversed again, we shall have to press on in the following sections 
to an understanding, from the particular standpoint of this third 
part of the doctrine, first of the sin of man in encounter with the 
glory of the Mediator Jesus Christ, then of the vocation of man as 
the immediate result of His divine-human, prophetic being and 
action, then of the Christian community as a provisional, earthly- 
historical correlate to His being and action in its mission in and to 
the world, and finally, in relation to the individual Christian, of 
Christian hope as the final and supreme fruit of reconciliation in its 
self-revelation. In all these developments we can press on only from 
the starting-point here established, and there is hardly a step where 
we shall not have urgent cause to return to this starting-point and 



276 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

to realise how far we do actually begin here and how far everything 
that is to be noted in detail is actually to be understood in the light 
of it. 

All the same, we have to press on. We shall not, then, be dealing 
any more with Christology in the narrower sense. We must enter 
the anthropological sphere, the sphere of our own life and the life of 
man generally. Or perhaps we should say rather more exactly the 
remaining sphere of our own life and the life of man generally. For 
the christological sphere is not to be found only in God, or somewhere 
in heaven, but at a specific point in the great field of human being 
and occurrence. It is here that reconciliation is enacted, and therefore 
reconciliation in its character as revelation, the prophecy of Jesus 
Christ, the shining of light in darkness. The present question concerns 
its effects on the remaining places in this great field which surround the 
christological sphere in the narrower sense, and are subordinate to it. 
Negatively, our answer must be in terms of sin as falsehood, and 
positively in terms of vocation, sending and hope. 

But to make the transition to this wider sphere as must now be 
attempted in this fourth and last division of the christological section 
we shall have to interpose an intermediate discussion. The same 
course had to be adopted in the first two parts of the doctrine. The 
corresponding sub-sections were there entitled " The Verdict of the 
Father " (IV, i, 59, 3) and " The Direction of the Son " (IV, 2, 64, 4). 
The theme of the transitional discussion now demanded is simply 
how far and in what way the being and action in the christological 
sphere can actually have effects, results and correspondences in this 
surrounding sphere of our own history and that of man generally. In 
other words, how far and with what right can we or must we proceed, 
on the basis of what is to be said of the being and action of Jesus 
Christ, to pronouncements concerning a being and action established 
and determined by it in our own life and that of the race as a whole ? 
To what extent is there a real and conceivable way from the one to 
the other, from Him to us ? It cannot be taken for granted that the 
justification and sanctification of man which took place there in 
Jesus Christ will take place here in our lives as our justification to 
be grasped in faith and our sanctification to be expressed in love. 
It cannot be taken for granted that Jesus Christ as Head has in human 
history and society a body in the form of His community, that He 
gathers and upbuilds His people. It cannot be taken for granted 
that man will be convicted of his pride and sloth and therefore of 
his sin in his encounter with the obedience of the Son of God and the 
lordship of the Son of Man. And in the present context it cannot be 
taken for granted that the shining of the light of life as the being 
and action of Jesus Christ will demonstrate its range and power in 
occurrences in the very different sphere in which we exist, even in 
the circle of which this shining light is the centre, and therefore in the 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 277 

vocation of man, the sending of the community and the hope of 
the Christian, or perhaps quite simply in the judgment of human 
falsehood. The step from the one to the other is too immeasurably 
great to be in any sense taken for granted. Hence it is quite unfitting 
that from a picture and concept of His being and action as Prophet 
we should go on at once to draw lines and consequences in relation 
to our own sphere, that we should immediately copy His divine- 
human appearance (or what we think we see and understand as such) 
on a reduced scale and in shadowy outline in our concept of our own 
being and action and that of man generally, that we should speak of 
correspondences to His history in ours or in that of the whole race as 
though it were the most natural thing in the world that there should 
be these, that a way from the one to the other should be open at once 
to our thinking and speaking. Between Jesus Christ as the Word of 
God and what becomes of this Word when we think we can receive 
and accept and assimilate and attest and pass it on, there yawns a 
deep cleft. Who are we other men, the rest of humanity, that the 
question can even arise, not of an artificial, but of a true and genuine 
continuity of this Word, and therefore of a real presence of the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ, of a shining of His light among and in and 
through us, in our receiving and attesting of His being and action ? 
For here among us everything is so very different from what it is 
there with Him. We ourselves are so very different from Him. The 
grace of the light of life shining in and through Jesus Christ, even if 
we are remotely aware of it, is one thing, but quite another is the fact 
that it should shine among and in and through us, that shining 
victoriously in darkness it should do so in our darkness. If this is 
the case, if the one grace of Jesus Christ includes the fact that we 
may receive and attest its Word, if from this third standpoint which 
now concerns us other statements may be made about reconciliation 
than the christological in the narrower sense, then there is every 
cause for new attention, astonishment, gratitude and praise of God 
in this all-embracing work of His. If we do not face the question 
involved, but regard the answer as self-evident, it can hardly play 
any significant part in our thinking and speaking. If we do not see 
that we are first halted at this point, we cannot advance legitimately 
and therefore solidly, but only surreptiously and in appearance. We 
must know what we are about when we dare to advance at this point. 
To consider this is the task of the fourth and final division of this 
christological section. 

It is to be noted that we are not yet going in the direction in- 
dicated. We are still moving in the christological sphere in the 
narrower sense. We have still to show to what extent there is an 
exit from this sphere in the direction indicated, and to what extent 
it is legitimate, compulsory, possible and necessary, in relation to the 
being and occurrence which fill this sphere, to proceed in this direction , 



278 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

namely, to what extent the being and occurrence which fill this sphere 
constrain us as such to move outwards into our own sphere. As at 
the corresponding points in the first two parts of the doctrine, we 
have thus to begin by showing that the decisive answer to our question 
is already given in the being and action of Jesus Christ, in the fulfil- 
ment of His atoning work, so that we have only to emphasise this 
afresh, understanding it as the answer to our present question. In 
other words, to find our answer we must turn again to His being and 
action as such. 

In the glory of the Mediator as such there is included the fact that 
He is in process of glorifying Himself among and in and through us, 
and that we are ordained and liberated to take a receptive and active 
part in His glory. In this respect as in others, namely, in the glory of 
His mediatorial work, Jesus Christ is not without His own. He is 
who He is as He is among them, the saving and illuminating centre 
of which they form the circumference saved and illuminated by Him. 
Virtually, prospectively and de iure all men are His own. Actually, 
effectively and de facto His own are those who believe in Him, who 
know Him, who serve Him and who are thus the interconnected 
members of His body, i.e., Christians. In this as in all other respects 
He is, and His work takes place, in fellowship with them, for them, 
among them, in them and also through them. He Himself, and in 
His person and work God, is always their Lord and Head. The 
relationship is always established, maintained and controlled by Him 
and is thus irreversible. But it is a real relationship. He is always in 
fellowship with them. Where He is, they are. To see Him is also to 
see those who belong to Him, His own surrounding Him. It is im- 
possible to believe in Him except in company with them. It is 
impossible to love Him without loving them as those who are also 
loved by Him. It is impossible to hope in Him without hoping for 
them. He is not a Head without a body, but the Head of His body 
and with His body. Even in the eternal divine decree of election He 
was not alone, but the One in whom as their Firstborn and Repre- 
sentative God also elected the many as His brethren because He also 
loved them in Him before the world was created and established. 
Hence He did not will to be the eternal Son of the eternal Father for 
Himself, but for us men. Nor did He become man for Himself, as 
though to be of divine essence as this one man, but in order to confirm 
His election as our eldest Brother, and therefore our election to divine 
sonship. He was God and became man as God in Him reconciled the 
world to Himself and fulfilled and sealed His covenant with all men. 
Thus His humiliation as the Son of God took place propter nos homines 
et propter nostrum salutem, in fulfilment of our justification before God. 
And His exaltation as the Son of Man took place in order that He 
might draw us all to Himself (Jn. i2 32 ), in fulfilment of our sanctifica- 
tion for God, With those who in the wider or narrower sense, virtually 



4- The Promise of the Spirit 279 

or actually, are His own, He thus forms a unity and totality. There 
is, of course, strict and irreversible super- and subordination. There is 
a strict and indissoluble distinction of position and functions. The 
centre cannot become the circumference nor the circumference the 
centre. But in this order and distinction there is a totality. He can 
as little be separated from them as they from Him. We can only 
misunderstand the whole being and action in the christological sphere 
if even temporarily or partially we understand it as exclusive instead 
of inclusive or particular and not at once universal in its particularity. 
Hence all the required and necessary looking away from the world 
and all men, even from the Church and faith, in short from ourselves 
to Him, can only be with a view to seeing in Him the real world, the 
real man, the real Church and real faith, our real selves. To be sure, 
we see them in all their differentiation and distinction. But we also 
see them in the communion which He Himself has established, in the 
communication which He Himself has actualised, with this very 
different Other, and therefore in their reality as promised, given, 
maintained and controlled by God in Him. 

This, then, is the basic answer to our question which is contained 
in all genuine knowledge of the being and action of Jesus Christ but 
now demands fresh emphasis. He Himself is not merely there in His 
own place, but as He is there in His own place He is also here in ours. 
He is the One who is on the way from there to here. Hence, as He 
is for Himself, He is also among and for and in and through us. He is 
and acts on His way from His own particular sphere to our surround- 
ing, anthropological sphere. We mistake His whole being and work 
if we do not see its direct connexion to ours and therefore the direct 
connexion of ours to His ; if we do not see, therefore, the continuity 
which He Himself has established and realises between His sphere 
and our sphere, or the sphere of human life generally. The recon- 
ciliation which has taken place in Him, in His person and work, is 
as such an occurrence which reaches beyond its own particular sphere, 
which embraces our sphere, the sphere of human life generally, which 
comprehends every man virtually, prospectively and de iure and the 
Christian actually, effectively and de facto, which assigns to him a 
receptive and spontaneous share. Even in relation to the high- 
priestly and kingly offices of Jesus Christ, and therefore in the first 
two parts of the doctrine, we cannot really see or understand or 
explain the atonement, the person and work of Jesus Christ, without 
having to consider in detail the problem or rather the reality of the 
outreaching, embracing and comprehensive character of this occur- 
rence. This is the general christological answer to our question. 

But the glory of the Mediator ; the being and action of Jesus Christ 
as the Revealer of the name hallowed in Him, the kingdom drawn near 
in Him and the will of God done in Him on earth as in heaven ; the 
light of life victoriously shining in Him ; the Word of God and His 



28o 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

grace spoken in Him ; in short, His reconciling being and action in His 
prophetic office, is obviously the specific aspect and determination of 
this occurrence in which its outreaching, embracing and comprehensive 
character is not of course grounded for it is grounded in all the 
determinations of this occurrence but is certainly effective and recog- 
nisable in a particular way and as it were ex officio. We say ex officio 
because we are here concerned with the particular determination of the 
officium mediatoriwn as officium propheticum, as His being and action 
in self-declaration. In His glory He radiates His being and action for 
the world out from Himself into the world in order that it may share 
it. In His revelation, shining as light, He discloses and manifests 
and announces and imparts Himself, moving out from Himself to 
where He and His being and work are not yet known and perceived, 
to where there is not yet any awareness of the alteration in Him of 
the situation between God and man, to where the consequences of this 
alteration have not yet been deduced, to where the sin of man, his 
pride and sloth, already overcome in the justification and sanctifica- 
tion of man accomplished in Him, still maintain a foothold, in a 
twofold sense per nefas. In His revelation, as Word, He goes out into 
the darkness of ignorance in which sin necessarily retains place and 
power, and the life of those whose deliverance and salvation are accom- 
plished in Him, who as His brothers are the children of God, but who 
are not yet aware of the fact, cannot assume the form corresponding 
to this accomplishment until He comes to give them this awareness 
and therefore to make possible this form. In His prophetic Word, in 
self-declaration, He does not remain aloof from those who dwell in 
darkness. He goes or comes to them to shine in and for them as 
the light of life, of their life already actualised in Him, in order 
that the place and power of sin, from which they are already liberated 
and separated in Him, should be destroyed in them too, in order that 
the alteration of the situation between God and man, which has 
validly taken place for them, should be effective and manifest in them 
too, in order that they, too, should grasp the grace of God which in 
Him is fully and unreservedly addressed to them already, in order 
that they, too, should thus begin to live by this grace. This is the 
outreaching, embracing and comprehending of reconciliation in its 
prophetic determination. It expresses itself. Its peculiar feature in 
this determination is that it shares with the world the fact that it 
is the world already reconciled with God. By this impartation it 
awakens and allows and commands it to know and experience and 
take itself seriously as such, to act as such, and therefore to exist as 
the reconciled and not the unreconciled world. It tells all those who 
do not yet know it that what has taken place among them is their 
own justification and sanctification, and in so doing it gives them 
the freedom to live in faith and love and calls them to tread the path 
of freedom. It reminds Christians of the fact that it is in this that 



4- The Promise of the Spirit 281 

they are Christians and thus marked off from others, that they already 
know this and have this freedom, that they should not be seduced 
from this path of freedom or grow weary of pursuing it. This ex- 
pressing, imparting, telling and reminding, which are not just verbal 
and intellectual but supremely real and powerful, are the new and 
particular feature of reconciliation in its form as revelation, of the 
glory of the Mediator, of the being and action of Jesus Christ in His 
prophetic office. As the Bearer and in the discharge of this office, in 
the whole teleology and dynamic of His divine-human person and 
act, in which He declares to the world no other or less than Himself 
as the One who is with it and for it as its Lord and Saviour, He is 
the Word which is not just empty, but which as His own Word is the 
Word which enlightens, awakens and quickens the world around, 
lifting it to its feet and setting it on the march. As this Word, Jesus 
Christ Himself in His movement from His own sphere to ours, from 
there to here, is the illuminating centre in the light of which we who 
are the circumference may be bright. As it is His Word, His being 
and action for the world and men and ourselves become His real 
penetration to the world and men and ourselves. This is the specific 
chnstological answer to our question which we must now consider in 
greater detail. 

A first and primary point is that it is the reference to the living 
Jesus Christ risen from the dead which makes it possible and necessary 
for us to give this particular answer to our question. The particular 
event of His resurrection is thus the primal and basic form of His 
glory, of the outgoing and shining of His light, of His expression, of 
His Word as His self-expression, and therefore of His outgoing and 
penetration and entry into the world around and ourselves, of His 
prophetic work. It is to this event that the New Testament witness 
refers, and on this that it builds, when it speaks of the universality of 
the particular existence of Jesus Christ, of the inclusiveness of His 
specific being and action, of the continuity in which He has His own 
special place but reaches out from it to embrace ours too, to com- 
prehend us men, to address and claim and treat and illumine us as 
His own people which we are in virtue of His being and action, and 
thus to find a form among us and in us. 



The testimony of the New Testament witnesses, their 8ia*ovta *al 
(Ac i 26 ), in which the disciples for their part turn to Jews and Gentiles, is 
testimony to His resurrection (Ac. i aa ) as His self-attestation in respect of the 
universality, inclusiveness and continuity of His particular being and action. 
of its outreaching, embracing and comprehensive character. Not for nothing 
was it the Resurrected who at the end of St. Matthew's Gospel (28 17f ) came 
among the disciples who partly knew Him but partly still doubted, and said to 
them : " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore 
(i.e , because I am the One, and to make known the fact that I am the One, 
to whom all power is given), and teach all nations . . . and, lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world." It is by the resurrection of Jesus Christ 



282 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

from the dead that God in His great mercy (i Pet. i 8 ) " hath begotten us again 
unto a lively hope." It is as Christians are " risen with him " (Col. 2 11 ) and 
" quickened " with Him (Eph. 2 5 ) that they are what they are, and not in any 
other way. " If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith 
is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God ... ye are yet in your 
sins " (i Cor. i5 14 17 ). It is on this basis that the New Testament knows Him 
as the living Jesus Christ and therefore as the Messiah of Israel, the Lord of His 
community and the Saviour of the world. It is on this basis that it knows Him 
as the One who reveals Himself as Messiah, Lord and Saviour, as the Mediator 
in His glory, as the true Son of God and Son of Man in His self-attestation, as 
the Reconciler in His declaration as such 

We have to realise that with the Church of every age, if we attempt 
a positive answer to this question, we can think only on this basis and 
begin with this event, presupposing that it has actually happened in 
its relationship to the life and death of Jesus Christ as such but also 
in its distinction from them. 

In His life and death as such, and therefore before this event, 
Jesus Christ was who He was : the Elect of God in and with whom 
His own are also elect ; true God and true man, not for Himself but 
for the reconciliation of the world ; High-priest and King pro nobis 
and pro me ; Messiah, Lord, Saviour and Mediator of His own, not 
without them but for them and with them. His work, His being and 
action, were not augmented by His resurrection. How could they 
be ? His work was finished. Yet without this event following His 
life and death, His finished being and action, this alteration of the 
situation between God and man as accomplished in Him, would have 
remained shut up in Him, because it would have been completely 
hidden from the disciples and the world and us, being quite unknown 
and therefore without practical significance. Without this event it 
would have lacked the glory and revelation and therefore the pro- 
phetic character of His being and action. His life would still have 
been the life of the whole world, but it would not have been light 
shining in this world and illuminating it. How, then, could it have 
reached the world as its life ? What would it have meant for it ? 
The grace addressed to all men in Jesus Christ would not have been 
for any of them Word or news or kerygma. How, then, could it be 
powerful for any of them ? How could it be lived by any of them ? 
He would then have been for us what He was, and have done for us 
what He did, in strict isolation and remoteness from us, without 
reaching us. And we for our part would be what we are, and do 
what we do, in strict isolation and remoteness from Him, without 
being reached by Him. The world reconciled to God in Him would 
then be practically and factually unreconciled as though nothing had 
happened, for it would be in no position to know Him as its Reconciler 
and therefore itself as the reconciled world, and thus to wrestle posi- 
tively or negatively with what had taken place for it in Him, and to 
reconstitute itself as such. In such case, there could not possibly be 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 283 

events in our anthropological sphere like the justification, sanctifica- 
tion and vocation of man, the gathering, upbuilding and sending of 
the community and the faith and love and hope of the Christian. 
Between Jesus Christ and the world around there would stand the 
unbridgeable gulf or the unscaleable and impenetrable wall of His 
death with no communication either way. Without this event beyond 
His life and death which destroys His death, He could not be the 
One who comes to us as He who has lived and died for us, but only 
the One who in His death has gone infinitely far from us like anyone 
else who dies. He would then be a past and dead Mediator and High- 
priest and King and Lord, etc., unknown and therefore without 
significance to us as such. Without this event He would have been 
what He was and done what He did quite in vain so far as we are 
concerned. This would be the situation if this event had not occurred. 
But it has occurred. Now is Christ risen from the dead. As the 
living One He has been called out from the host of the dead and 
buried, of those who have gone, of those who are past and forgotten, 
of those who are unknown and of no significance to us. He has closed 
the gulf and stormed the high wall between Him and us. And this 
means that He not only was what He was for the world, pro nobis 
and pro me, and not only did what He did as the Son of God and 
Son of Man, but also that, according to the distinctive Easter term, 
He appeared in this being and action of His, coming forth and showing 
Himself as the One who is alive beyond the frontier of death, as the 
light of the world, as Word to all, as reconciliation revealed and not 
hidden, as salvation manifest and not concealed, as not merely the 
reality of the alteration accomplished in Him but also its eloquent 
truth In the event of His resurrection from the dead, His being and 
action as very God and very man emerged from the concealment of 
His particular existence as an inclusive being and action enfolding 
the world, the humanity distinct from Himself and us all. In it He 
expressed Himself from without for us In it He gave Himself to be 
seen and understood and known as the saving, upholding, sustaining 
centre of His circumference, as the salvation of all creation and 
therefore of us all In it He thus established without, for us, the 
freedom to turn to Hun, to place ourselves on the foundation of peace 
laid by Him, to breathe His air, to share His life. To know Him as 
ours, as our Lord, and to know us Christians as actually, effectively 
and de facto, and all men as virtually, prospectively and de iure His, 
is thus to know the power of His resurrection and therefore the power 
of this particular event. In Him there took place in a way which is 
basic for all the men of every age and place the disclosure and self- 
attestation of Jesus Christ, and in them there was granted the freedom 
to know Him, and in Him His being for, among and in them, and 
therefore theirs with and in Him. This knowledge is Easter know- 
ledge. Its basis, theme and content are the life and death of Jesus 



284 69- The Glory of the Mediator 

Christ in which He gave Himself to the world, to His community and 
therefore to us as Reconciler, Deliverer, Brother and Lord, uniting 
Himself with us and us with Himself. But the basis, theme and 
content of this knowledge are His life and death for us on the assump- 
tion of the particular knowledge of its revelation and declaration, in 
its character as Word and prophecy. In this character Jesus Christ 
and His being and action in His life and death have penetrated to us 
in the particular event of His resurrection, thus becoming truth in 
their reality, and as truth reality for the world, for the community, 
pro nobis and pro me. 

It is thus with good reason that from the very first the main Christian festival 
has not been Christmas, nor Good Friday, but Easter. This does not mean that 
what took place in the birth and suffering and death of Jesus Chnst is under- 
estimated. It means that it is given its supreme value. For this knowledge of 
the being and action of the One who was born in Bethlehem and died on Calvary, 
the knowledge that He is not dead but that He lives for us and among us and in 
us, and that we may live with and in Him, has its origin in what took place on 
Easter Day as His emergence from the concealment to the revelation of His 
being and action for us, among us and in us. The freedom to keep Christmas 
and Good Friday is grounded in the freedom in which we keep Easter, i.e , in 
which we may know the One who was born and died for the world, for the 
community and for us as the One who lives for us, among us and in us. 

This, then, is our general and detailed christological answer to the 
question of the possibility and legitimacy of a transition from the 
sphere of Jesus Christ Himself to our own general sphere of human life. 

What have we done in giving this answer ? As announced, we 
have first emphasised afresh the supreme answer to the question 
which is already given in the being and action of Jesus Christ, in the 
fulfilment of His work of reconciliation, if it is seen and understood 
aright. We have first recalled in general terms that He is never in 
any respect without His own, men, Christians, but that always in 
all respects He is what He is and does what He does with them, in 
them and through them. He Himself is and acts inclusively, and 
therefore in this transition from Himself to the world, to us. And 
in the realisation of this transition, as we have also maintained in 
detail, He is also light, Word and prophecy, the Revealer of His 
being and action, the declaration of the atonement made in Him, of 
the alteration of the situation between God and man accomplished 
in Him, for the world around, for and in and through us. 

These two assertions may be regarded as an initial answer to our 
question. But we cannot make them without remembering that 
they can have force only in relation to the living Jesus Christ, as 
statements about Him, and in attention to His self -declaration. They 
are statements of Easter knowledge on the basis of His Easter revela- 
tion. Their power can be only the power of His resurrection. For it 
is in this that His being and action have disclosed themselves for 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 285 

and with and in and through us. In this there has taken place His 
announcement of the reconciliation fulfilled in Him. In this His 
prophecy is initiated in its primal and basic form. In this there 
took place first that exit, transition and entry. In relation to a dead 
Jesus Christ, known to us only in a more or less clear but then clouded 
recollection or through a more or less powerful ecclesiastical tradition, 
these statements would never even have occurred to us, and we 
certainly could not have made them with the definiteness with which 
we have done so. Whatever else we might know or not know con- 
cerning Him, we could know nothing of His inclusive being and action 
embracing the world, the Church and ourselves, nor of Him as the 
declaration of this inclusive being and action. He would then be 
hidden from us in His outreaching, embracing and comprehending. 
We could have only hazy conjectures or make only arbitrary asser- 
tions concerning His movement from there to here or the connexion 
between Him and us. A precise and conscientious affirmative can be 
given to the question of this movement and connexion only in the 
power of His self-witness as the living One, and therefore as the 
Resurrected from the dead. It can have its origin only in this event. 
It must maintain an awareness of its origin in this event. It will 
not loose itself from this event either in the fact that it is ventured 
or in the way in which it is ventured. That Jesus Christ and His 
own, He and we, do belong together as unity and totality, and that 
this is so as and because He reveals and declares Himself as the 
One who is for and with and in and through them this positive 
answer to our question has validity and force as it has an Easter 
character given by reference to the living Jesus Christ and the occur- 
rence of this event. Only as ventured with this character has it any 
real validity. 

But this means (i) that, while the two christological assertions 
with which we started, the general and the particular, are correct in 
themselves, they are not adequate as a positive answer, or as the 
authentication of a positive answer, to our question. Even if it be 
assumed that, so far as this is possible generally and briefly, we have 
made them fully and correctly, the fact remains that not even the 
most apt and excellent statement concerning the universality, in- 
clusiveness and continuity of the being and action of Jesus Christ, 
nor the best statement concerning the prophecy of Jesus Christ in 
which He Himself actualises them, can possibly be thought adequate 
to indicate the movement from Him to us, His being among and in 
us, which is the theme of our present enquiry. Theological clarity 
and cheerfulness are excellent gifts of God when we enjoy them, but 
they must not cause us to make the mistake of using the theological 
and specifically the christological statements which we ourselves 
can and should make to fill up the space in which only the living 
Jesus Christ in His self-revelation can affirm what we think we can 



286 6g. The Glory of the Mediator 

and must say concerning Him. No Christology can reproduce either 
the Easter event in which He has come forth alive from the dead 
both to be and to be revealed and knowable as the One He is, nor 
Himself as the living One who attests Himself authentically in His 
being and action for and among and in us. It can be Easter Christ- 
ology in preaching, teaching, worship, pastoral care and dogmatics 
only if it does not attempt such reproduction and if its declarations 
leave place, and indeed finish up by yielding place, to His self-declara- 
tion, just as the resurrection accounts of the Evangelists and Paul 
never narrate the event as such but always record and bear witness 
to the appearances of the Resurrected. Easter thinking and speaking 
about the interrelationship between Jesus Christ and the world 
around, about His outgoing and incoming into this world and to us, 
are thinking and speaking which, with due respect and glad anticipa- 
tion, count upon the sovereign presence and action of the Resurrected 
Himself and therefore His own declaration, not trying to conceal or 
replace these, but yielding them place, in order that He Himself may 
come from this place to our place, and thus make this transition real 
and therefore true. If our christological assertions are sustained and 
determined and filled by this respect and anticipation, then they are 
reliable as theological statements, and we need not be mortally con- 
cerned about the elements of incompleteness and incorrectness which 
even at best will cling to them, since they can be valid and helpful as 
a positive answer to our question concerning this exit, transition and 
entry. In this respect matters are exactly the same as we maintained 
at the end of the previous sub-section with reference to our argumenta- 
tions concerning the question of the certainty of the victory of the 
prophecy of Jesus Christ in its relation to the reality of this prophecy. 
But this means (2) that this positive answer to our question has 
force and validity, i.e., an Easter character, if we never cease to be 
astonished that we can and should give it. It is not, then, that we 
falter for a moment before giving it, and then, when the solution to 
the problem is happily found, we cheerfully proceed to further thought 
and utterance, drawing deductions, making applications, finding 
illustrations and in short treating the matter as though it were under 
our mastery. If we really see and understand it, it is never under 
our mastery, and therefore we can never cease to be astonished. To 
emphasise afresh, from what we already know or think we know of 
Jesus Christ, the answer : " Lo, I am with you alway," is always to 
be set before the event, and to have to remember the event, in which 
all knowledge of Him has its origin. We think again of Lessing's 
problem of leaping the "ugly ditch " between history and faith. We 
think of the great difficulty of conceiving the possibility of the transi- 
tion. Yet it is not these things, but the incomprehensible nature of 
the reality of its accomplishment in this event, which not once but 
whenever we think and speak of it brings us up short before the 



4- The Promise of the Spirit 287 

fact that it really is accomplished, that the way is open from the one 
side to the other. Hence we must be content to be brought up short 
continually if we have genuine knowledge and can thus proceed 
to genuine thought and utterance. The Easter event, or the New 
Testament accounts of the appearances which follow it, may be 
interpreted in different ways. This question need not detain us here. 
But however we interpret it, there can be no doubt that it was the 
event of a new and special act of God in which it took place and was 
manifested that the Living was not to be sought among the dead and 
buried and departed who may be mourned for a time and then for- 
gotten. He was not to be sought among them because He was not 
among them. He was risen from the dead. He lived with full power 
to present and attest Himself. He " appeared " and acted and spoke. 
In this power He accomplished His communion and communication 
with His own and thus revealed His being and action for and among 
and with them. We count upon this special act of God, upon this 
life, upon this self-presentation and self-attestation, upon the action 
of the Resurrected from the dead in this special act, when we answer 
positively the question of this transition. If we really know what we 
are about in this, if we do it with true knowledge, we do it in the 
freedom grounded on this act of God, and on the basis of this event ; 
for in this event it has its origin as genuine knowledge. But this 
being the case, we cannot but do it with astonishment. We are 
startled at the nature of the reality to which we refer and on which 
we rest. We are surprised by the unexpected thing which enlightens 
and motivates us. We are thankful for the grace which frees us to go 
further. We adore as we make use of this freedom. Unless we hear 
the Halt which is here required of us, there can be no Forward. A 
positive answer to our question is made a valid and tolerable because 
an Easter answer only as it proceeds from a hearing of this Halt and 
therefore of this Forward. 

The question whether or not this astonishment is contained and expressed 
in our words and statements is a critical one. On the surface many assertions 
may appear to be identical. Only if there is this astonishment, however, can 
there be serious, fruitful and edifying Christian thought and utterance in the 
Church and its theology. Otherwise there will be that which may seem to be 
learned and edifying but is basically and in its effects banal, trivial and tiresome. 
And it is worth asking whether this distinction is not more incisive and more 
serious in practice than all the distinctions of confessions and movements in 
Christian theology and ecclesiology, and does not cut right through them all 
with its greater depth and relentlessness. We may be Protestants or Catholics, 
Lutherans or Reformed, to the right or to the left, but in some way we must have 
seen and heard the angels at the open and empty tomb if we are to be sure of 
our ground and to say anything true or significant about this thing which is so 
vital for us all, namely, the matter of this transition. 

From the relationship of a positive answer to our question with the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, it also follows (3) that we not only can 



288 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

but should be sure of our ground in the matter of this transition. If 
we believe at all, we cannot half believe in the presence and action 
of the living Jesus Christ, in the fact that He is with us alway, even 
unto the end of the world. We can speak of this only in distinct and 
not in ambiguous words and statements. Naturally, we are not 
thinking here of the passion of a so-called conviction, let alone of any 
spiritual rhetoric. We are thinking of a certainty which may be 
deeply concealed and indiscernible because it cannot be expressed as 
such but only indicated indirectly, namely, the certainty that in the 
light of its origin in the Easter revelation only a positive answer can 
be given to our question, a positive answer being self-evident on this 
basis. There is a place for doubt, for the dialectic of Yes and No, 
for the attitude of perhaps and perhaps not, for hesitation whether 
things might be so. But this place is merely the forecourt where we 
think we are dealing with possibilities such as the obvious possibility 
that an unknown Jesus Christ might exist at a distance from the real 
world but could not have anything to do with us, or the opposite 
possibility which at least deserves consideration that He does perhaps 
have something to do with us because He is present and active within 
the world. Face to face with such possibilities, it is inevitable that 
we should hesitate. But the situation is quite different when we 
know that in the Easter revelation a decision has been taken which 
makes it impossible for us to be ceaselessly and therefore hesitantly 
occupied with possibilities because we are now concerned only with 
the reality of the way on which Jesus Christ strides into the world 
and to us as the One He is for the world and therefore pro nobis and 
pro me, not remaining alone but already present among us and with 
us. If it is clear that a positive answer to our question can be based 
only upon the reality of the living Jesus Christ manifested and known 
in this way, but that it really is based upon this as God's own act, 
then this positive answer, however it may be worked out in our 
thought and utterance, necessarily acquires and has the stamp of the 
axiomatic, the first and the last, and therefore the self-evident. In 
this matter we think and speak in terms of Easter if we no longer 
think and speak about this exit, transition and entry, but on the 
basis of them as bound and liberated by a decision which was not 
our work but has been taken in a way which is normative for our 
work. Our part is simply to have regard to this decision and to 
follow it. In so doing we shall certainly be conscious of the many 
sins of thought and word of which we are guilty. But we may also 
take comfort that in virtue of this origin of our knowledge it is con- 
stantly brought to light, but also protected. The decisive thing is 
that we should find ourselves set before, but also committed to and 
liberated for, the task of following the decision taken in God's own 
act, of taking all our own decisions of thought and word in the direction, 
in the clean and healthy atmosphere, of the decision made with the 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 289 

resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, in the love which drives 
out fear and leaves no place for legitimate or necessary doubts. 

It is to be noted that this third determination does not contradict the second, 
namely, that the Easter certainty of a genuine positive answer to our question 
does not contradict the astonishment with which alone it can be made. The 
certainty is indeed rooted in the astonishment, and in the astonishment it con- 
tinually becomes certainty Hence we are confronted at this point by the same 
dividing line which runs through all Christian thinking and speaking, through 
all ecclesiology and theology. In all confessions and movements the ultimate 
test is whether, in the given freedom and the imposed obligation of the Easter 
revelation, with all the astonishment of certainty as to its origin, our theology, 
for all its human frailty and exposure, moves with steps that are sure and not 
unsure, not pursuing a zig-zag course but moving straight ahead on the way 
disclosed and appointed. The ultimate test is whether in this twofold determina- 
tion, confronted by the living Jesus Christ, it has a purpose and future as Easter 
theology or ecclesiology. 

It may be surprising but it is quite unavoidable that we should now 
admit that the real difficulty in this positive answer to our question 
is not behind us but still ahead. It is just because of the final point 
mentioned in our discussion that this is so. 

For the full extent of the difficulty emerges when we take quite 
seriously the resurrection of Jesus Christ as the basis and confirmation 
of the answer now given. To take quite seriously does not mean 
merely to reckon with the accomplished nature of this event, or to 
try to think seriously in the light of it, but to realise, to perceive, to 
be quite clear what this event implies when properly understood, 
namely, what is implied by it as the self -declaration, accomplished in 
this new and specific divine act, of the being and action of Jesus 
Christ in His preceding being and action, as the expression of the 
reconciliation of the world to God effected in His life and death, as 
the revelation of the name of God hallowed in Him, the kingdom come, 
the will of God done on earth as in heaven, in short, as the prophecy 
of Jesus Christ in its primal and basic form and therefore in its dis- 
tinctive immediacy and perfection. Immediacy and perfection are 
not proper to it in any of its indirect and derivative forms, e.g., in 
the witness of Scripture or the witness of the Church following the 
witness of Scripture. But they are proper to it in the self -witness 
of the living Jesus Christ and therefore in the event in the course of 
which He has appeared to His own as the One who is alive from the 
dead and therefore as theirs, as the Lord and Saviour present and active 
among and with and in them and therefore implicitly among and 
with and in the world, making peace between heaven and earth. This 
event, and therefore what has taken place in it, i.e., the appearance 
of the living Jesus Christ, of His being and action in its form as accom- 
plished declaration, as spoken Word, as immediate and perfect 
revelation, are not taken seriously if we allow ourselves any sub- 
tractions or restrictions in estimating their scope. Whatever the 
C.D. iv.-m.-i. 10 



290 69. The Glory of the Mediator 

results may be, whatever obvious questions may arise, we must 
accept the prophecy of Jesus Christ in the immediacy and perfection 
with which it encounters us in this event, in the self-attestation of 
the living Jesus Christ. 

We hardly do justice to the Church or theology m almost any age and form 
if we reproach it with having failed to note that this is something to be taken 
seriously. We need only refer to the emphasis on the Easter festival already 
mentioned. Or we might allude to the conscious replacement of the Jewish 
sabbath by Sunday as the first day of the week, and the celebration of this 
icvpiaict) 17/t^xx (Rev. i 10 ) as the day of the Lord's resurrection after the sabbath 
and thus a kind of recurrent Easter. But even though there is a lively or revived 
recollection of the significance of Easter, it has still to be asked whether there is 
any serious consideration or understanding of what has really to be celebrated 
on Easter Day or its weekly repetition, of what makes this day the Lord's day 
primarily and supremely for the Christian world, yet not for this alone, but for 
the world as a whole, for all men Is it really perceived what distinguishes the 
Easter liturgy in the Roman Missal and the Easter festival in the consciousness 
of other Christians "> In Christian piety and worship and preaching and in- 
struction and theology, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is constantly regarded 
as merely one particular saving event among the many others which constitute 
the so-called history of salvation It may be proclaimed as the solemn demonstra- 
tion of Christ as Lord of life and death, and therefore of His deity. It may be 
envisaged as the crowning of His human life by the transcending and conquering 
of His death As in the Liberal theology and preaching of the igth century 
and with a little good will we may regard even this as a genuine if ill-advised 
concern efforts may be made to bring it home to the modern man by magnifying 
it as the model or even as an example of all incomprehensible renewals in the 
sphere of the creaturely life of nature and spirit, and particularly m that of 
individual human existence To be sure, the fiery heart of the matter is seen in 
the best utterances of the Reformation theology of the i6th century. We need 
only read and ponder Luther's Easter hymns, or the Heidelberg Catechism under 
Qu. 45 : " What benefit do we receive from the resurrection of Christ ? " to which 
the answer is given . " First, by His resurrection He has overcome death, that 
He might make us partakers of the righteousness which by his death He has 
obtained for us Secondly, we also are now by His power raised up to a new 
life. Thirdly, the resurrection of Christ is to us a sure pledge of our blessed 
resurrection." This is all true. But ought not the consideration of this matter 
to have extended beyond the benefits to a realisation of the particular greatness 
and scope of its objective occurrence as such ? And would not this have perhaps 
revealed that its occurrence, in giving us a positive answer to the question of the 
unity of Jesus Christ with His own and indeed with the world, carries with it 
certain consequences in face of which we must consider this positive answer 
afresh if we are to understand it rightly ? It may well be that fear of these 
consequences has a good deal to do with the fact that the Easter event and the 
Easter message are not taken more seriously than is usually the case. 

What are these consequences ? 

Let us try to be clear what it means if it is true that in this event 
there has taken place the self -declaration of Jesus Christ, of His 
being and action in the relationship between God and man, and 
therefore the revelation of the reconciliation of the world with God, 
the immediate and perfect prophecy, by a new and specific divine 
act, of the divine-human High-priest and King. Let us have no 



4. The Promise of the Spirit 291 

reservations on the ground that what has taken place is perhaps too 
great for the measure of our being and understanding, nor prudent 
fears of the questions raised. These will come later. But they can 
properly come only when we first realise on what basis and with 
what reference they can be put and answered. Our first and uncon- 
ditional objective must be to see and know what the Easter message 
no less unconditionally says. 

In a first and very general formulation of its declaration, we 
venture the statement that the Easter event, as the revelation of the 
being and action of Jesus Christ in His preceding life and death, is 
His new coming as the One who had come before. As is made quite 
clear by the accounts in the Gospels, the One who now comes afresh 
and appears to His disciples is none other than the One who had 
come before. He is " Jesus Christ yesterday " (Heb. I3 8 ), the One 
who yesterday acted and suffered and was finally crucified in His 
existence as temporally limited by His birth and death, with all the 
power and range and significance of this event for the whole world, 
but still enclosed yesterday within the limits of His existence, con- 
cealed and unknown in the world reconciled to God in Him, not yet 
exercising the latent power and range and significance of His presence 
and therefore putting into effect what was done in Him for all men 
and for the whole created order. This One who came before now 
comes afresh in the Easter event. He is " Jesus Christ to-day/' in 
all His being and action of yesterday, and its whole power for the 
world, new in the fact that to-day, His death and the empty tomb 
behind Him, He moves out from the latency of His being and action 
of yesterday and from the inoperativeness of His power, appearing to 
His disciples and in them potentially to all men and the whole cosmos, 
declaring Himself, making known His presence and what has been 
accomplished in Him for all men and for the whole created order, 
putting it into effect. With its manifestation and self -declaration, 
the fact of there and yesterday now becomes the factor of here and 
to-day. And in virtue of this event, newly come in His self-revelation 
as the One who came, Jesus Christ will not cease to be this factor 
and to work as such. Hence " Jesus Christ for ever " (Heb. 13). As 
this factor, as the Prophet, Witness and Preacher entered into the 
world, as the light of His mediatorship, of the atonement made in 
Him, shining from this place, He is the living Jesus Christ, who has 
death behind Him, the light which shines in the world and can never 
be extinguished. And the world for its part is what it is enabled to 
be in the presence of this factor, in encounter with Him, in the