Sidor som bilder

the devil (?). This view is represented in this period by Irenæus. His train of thought is the following: Man came under the dominion of the devil by violating the divine commandment. This state of bondage lasted from Adam to Christ. The latter delivered men by rendering perfect obedience on the cross, and paying a ransom with His blood. God did not rescue their souls from the power of the devil by force, as the devil himself had done, but secundum suadelam. All depends upon the explanation of this word. According to Baur, l.c., the devil was himself convinced of the justice of the manner in which he was treated. But Duncker, s. 237, and Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 201, refer the suadela more correctly to man, who was delivered from the power of the devil by the better conviction he had gained through the teaching of Christ. Comp. the passage, on the previous page, from the Ep. ad Diognetum, ὡς πείθων, οὐ βιαζ. [Comp. Dorner, i. 479 (also against Baur). Dorner makes use of the passage from the Ep. ad Diog. to refute Baur's interpretation of Irenæus.] And as man now voluntarily abandoned the service of the devil, under whose sway he had voluntarily placed himself, the relation of Ruler in which God stands to was restored; comp. Iren. Adv. Hær. v. 1, 1: [Et quoniam injuste dominabatur nobis apostasia, et cum natura essemus Dei omnipotentis, alienavit nos contra naturam, suos proprios nos faciens discipulos, potens in omnibus Dei verbum, et non deficiens in sua justitia, juste etiam adversus ipsum conversus est apostasiam, ea quæ sunt sua redimens ab eo non cum vi, quemadmodum ille initio dominabatur nostri, ea quæ non erant sua insatiabiliter rapiens; sed secundum suadelam, quemadmodum decebat Deum suadentem, et non vim inferentem, accipere quæ vellet, ut neque quod est justum confringeretur, neque antiqua plasmatio Dei deperiret.] From this Irenæus infers the necessity of the Saviour's twofold nature (here the views of Irenæus approach most nearly those of Anselm in a later period), iii. 18, 7: "Hvwσev тòν аveрwπоv τῷ θεῷ. Εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἄνθρωπος ἐνίκησε τὸν ἀντίπαλον τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, οὐκ ἂν δικαίως ἐνικήθη ὁ ἐχθρός; comp. v. 21, iii. 19, 3 : "Ωσπερ γὰρ ἦν ἄνθρωπος ἵνα πειρασθῆ, οὕτως καὶ Móyos va dogaoon, etc. (comp. § 65, note 4). Both elements. are here, viz. the perfect obedience of Christ, and the shedding


of His blood as a ransom (v. 1, 1: To idi ovv aïμati λυτρωσαμένου ἡμᾶς τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ δόντος τὴν ψυχὴν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν, καὶ τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀντὶ τῶν йμетéρшν σаρкŵv, etc.): and thus Irenæus has in his system the negative aspect of the doctrine of redemption; and to this is added the positive one, the communication of a new principle of life, iii. 23, 7. Comp. Baur, l.c. s. 30-42. Bähr, s. 55-72. On the other hand, the idea of a sacrifice is in his writings kept in the background, see Duncker, s. 252: "The idea of the vicarious sufferings of the Lord, in the sense that thereby satisfaction is rendered to the divine justice, which had been offended by our sins, and that thus the punishment, which ought in justice to have been inflicted upon all men, is cancelled -this idea is not found in Irenæus, any more than the corresponding notion of an exchange or compact with the devil, by which he receives, as it were, a legal compensation for the men he gives up." Neander qualifies this statement of the views of Irenæus, by adding, "but doubtless there is lying at the bottom the idea of a perfect fulfilment of the law by Christ; of His perfect obedience to the holiness of God in its claims to satisfaction due to it from mankind." And Thomasius, iii. 176, cites from Irenæus, iii. 18: "We were God's enemies and debtors, and Christ in His priestly work fulfilled the law”— propitians pro nobis Deum; and also xvii. 1: Et propter hoc in novissimis temporibus in amicitiam nos restituit Dominus per suam incarnationem, mediator Dei et hominum factus; propitians quidem pro nobis Patrem, in quem peccaveramus, et nostram inobedientiam consolatus, etc.

(5) On the peculiar usage of the term "satisfactio," comp. Münscher, Handb. i. s. 223. Bähr, s. 90 ff. On the question whether Justin M. propounded the doctrine of satisfaction, see Semisch, s. 423, 424. The answer to it must mainly depend on the interpretation of vπép, which frequently occurs in his writings, Apol. i. 63; Dial. c. Tryph. § 88, and other passages quoted by Semisch. He distinctly says that the curse under which Christ was laid was only apparent (δοκοῦσαν κατάραν), Dial. c. Tryph. § 90; comp. § 94: "Оνжер ovν тρÓTOV TÒ σημεῖον διὰ τοῦ χαλκοῦ ὄφεως γενέσθαι ὁ θεὸς ἐκέλευσε, καὶ ἀναίτιός ἐστιν, οὕτω δὴ καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ κατάρα κεῖται κατὰ τῶν σταυρουμένων ἀνθρώπων· οὐκ ἔτι δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοῦ

Χριστοῦ θεοῦ κατάρα κεῖται, δι' οὗ σώζει πάντας τοὺς κατάρας ἄξια πράξαντας. § 96: Καὶ γὰρ τὸ εἰρημένον ἐν τῷ νόμῳ, ὅτι ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὁ κρεμάμενος ἐπὶ ξύλου οὐχ ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ καταρωμένου τούτου τοῦ ἐσταυρωμένου, ἡμῶν τονοῖ τὴν ἐλπίδα ἐκκρεμαμένην ἀπὸ τοῦ σταυρωθέντος Χριστοῦ, ἀλλ ̓ ὡς προειπόντος τοῦ θεοῦ τὸ ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν πάντων καὶ τῶν ὁμοίων ὑμῖν . . . μέλλοντο γίνεσθαι. § 111: Ὁ παθητὸς ἡμῶν καὶ σταυρωθεὶς Χριστὸς οὐ κατηράθη ὑπὸ τοῦ νόμου, ἀλλὰ μόνος σώσειν τοὺς μὴ ἀφισταμένους τῆς πίστεως αὑτοῦ ednov. The agony of soul in Gethsemane, too, according to Justin, only made indubitable the fact of Christ's human nature, and set aside the subterfuge that, because He was the Son of God, He could not feel pain as well as other men; cf. Dial. c. Tryph. § 103. Neander says: Neander says: "In Justin Martyr may be recognised the idea of a satisfaction rendered by Christ through suffering-at least lying at the bottom, if it is not clearly unfolded and held fast in the form of conscious thought." So, too, Thomasius, Christologie, iii. 169. Tert. De Pœn. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10; De Pat. 13; De Pud. 9, it is evident "that he applies the term satisfaction to such as make amends for their own sins by confession and repentance, which shows itself in works;" but he never understands by it satisfactio vicaria in the sense afterwards attached to it. That Tertullian was far from entertaining this view may be proved from De Cultu Fem. i. 1, and the interpretation which he gives to Gal. iii. 13, Contra Judæos, 10. He there represents the crime that had been committed as a curse, but not the hanging on the tree (for Christ was not accursed by God, but by the Jews); thus also Contra Marc. v. 5, and other passages which are quoted by Bühr, s. 89 ff. In other points his views resemble those of Irenæus, ibid. s. 100-104.


(6) On the relation of these two representations of the matter, viz. that of Irenæus, that it was a victory over the devil (which assumes in Origen the still more mythical character of an intentional deception on the part of God), and that it was a voluntary sacrifice, not having respect, like the former, to the idea of justice, but resting rather on the love of God, compare Baur, s. 43-67; Bähr, s. 111 ff.; Thomasius, s. 214ff.; Redepenning, ii. s. 405; Gieseler, Dogmengesch. s. 203. On the question whether Origen taught an intentional decep

tion on the part of God, see (against Baur) Redepenning, s. 406, Anm. 5. The idea is original that it was a torment to the devil to be obliged to keep near him so pure a soul as that of Jesus; he could not keep it, because it did not belong to him. Comp. Origen's Comm. in Matt. t. xvi. 8 (Opp. i. 726) and the other passages, Comment. series, § 75 (on Matt. xxvi. 1, Opp. i. 819), and on Matt. t. xiii. 8 and 9, in which the giving up of the Son by the Father appears as an act of love, in distinction from the treachery practised on Him by Satan through his agents (different interpretations of the expression waрadídoσlaι used in both places). Origen's interpretation of Isa. liii. 5 comes nearest to the view entertained in later times by Anselm, Comment. in Joh. t. xxviii. 14, Opp. iv. p. 392. (Bähr, s. 151.)1 But still Origen differs from the Church doctrine of satisfaction. in the manner in which he explains, e.g., the sufferings in Gethsemane, and the forsaking of Christ on the cross: My God, my God, etc. (Bähr, s. 147-149, and Redepenning, s. 408 ff.) [On Origen's views, comp. Thomson's Bampton Lectures, ubi supra; and Origen in Joan. t. ii. 21, in Matt. xvi. 8, and in Rom. ii. 13 (p. 493): Si ergo pretio emti sumus, ut etiam Paulus adstipulatur, nec ab aliquo sine dubio emti sumus cujus eramus servi, qui et pretium poposcit quod voluit, ut de potestate dimitteret quos tenebat. Tenebat autem nos Diabolus, cui distracti fueramus peccatis nostris. Poposcit ergo pretium nostrum sanguinem Christi. That Origen also brought the death of Christ into relation to God, see his Comment. on Rom. iii. 24 (Thomasius, iii. 180): Nunc addit [Paulus] aliquid sublimius et dicit: proposuit eum Deus propitiationem, quo scilicet per hostiam sui corporis propitium hominibus faceret Deum; and his Hom. in Lev. ix. 10: Tu, qui ad Christum venisti, qui sanguine suo Deum tibi propitium fecit, et reconciliavit te patri, etc. See also Oxenham, u. s. p. 112 ff.]

(7) Comp. t. xix. in Joh. (Opp. iv. p. 286), and the passage before quoted from t. xxviii. p. 393; Contra Cels. i. 1, p. 349: Ὅτι ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ἑκὼν τοῦτον τὸν θάνατον ὑπὲρ τοῦ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένους ἀνεδέξατο, ἀνάλογον τοῖς ἀποθανοῦσι ὑπὲρ

1 But it should not be overlooked that Origen immediately afterwards connects this passage with 1 Cor. iv. 13, and applies to Christ in a higher degree what is there said in reference to the apostles, and also adduces still other examples from ancient times.

πατρίδων ἐπὶ τῷ σβέσαι λοιμικὰ κρατήσαντα καταστήματα ἢ ἀφορίας ἢ δυσπλοίας. These human sacrifices were thought to be connected with the influence exerted by the demons, which was to be removed by them; see Baur, s. 45, and Mosheim, in a note to the translation of that passage, s. 70. The death of Christ also gave an additional weight to His doctrine, and was the cause of its propagation; Hom. in Jerem. 10, 2, comp. Bähr, s. 142, who observes that no ecclesiastical writer of this period besides Origen distinctly mentions this point. This idea bears, indeed, the greatest resemblance to the modern rationalistico-moral notions concerning the death of Christ. He also compares the death of Jesus with that of Socrates, Contra Cels. ii. 17, Opp. i. p. 403, 404, and represents it as a moral lever to elevate the courage of His followers (ibid. 40-42, p. 418, 419).

(8) Clement, too, saw in the death of the martyrs a reconciling power, Strom. iv. 9, p. 596, comp. p. 602, 603; likewise Orig. Comm. in Joh. (Opp. iv. p. 153, 154), Exhort. ad Martyr. 50, Opp. i. p. 309: Τάχα δὲ καὶ ὥσπερ τιμίῳ αἵματι τοῦ ̓Ιησοῦ ἠγοράσθημεν . . οὕτως τῷ τιμίῳ αἵματι τῶν μαρτύρων ἀγορασθήσονταί τινες.

(9) On the basis of Col. i. 20 (Comment. in Joh. i. 40, Opp. iv. p. 41, 42): Οὐ μόνον ὑπὲρ ἀνθρώπων ἀπέθανεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ VπÈρ τŵν XоIπŵν λoyikov. De Princip. iv. 25 (Opp. i. p. 188; Redep. p. 79 and 364). There are two altars on which sacrifice is made, an earthly and a heavenly; Hom. in Lev. i. 3 (Opp. ii. p. 186), ii. 3 (ibid. p. 190); comp. Bähr, s. 119 ff. Baur, s. 64. Thomasius, s. 214-217. Redepenning, Orig. ii. s. 403. From all that has been said in reference to the subject in question, it would follow that the primitive Church held the doctrine of vicarious sufferings, but not that of vicarious satisfaction. But we should not lay too much stress upon the negative aspect of this inference, so as to justify or to identify it with that later interpretation of the death of Jesus which excludes everything that is mysterious. Comp. Bühr, s. 5-8, and 176-180.

§ 69.

Descensus ad Inferos.

J. A. Dietelmaier, Historia Dogmatis de Descensu Christi ad Inferos, Altorf. 1762. J. S. Semler, Observatio historico-dogmatica de vario et impari veterum Studio in recolenda Historia Descensus Christi ad Inferos, Hal.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »