Karl Holl was a German theologian who lived from 1866-1926. He taught at Tuebingen, and of the great Twentieth-Century theologians, Holl is among those who stand the closest to the animating concerns of Mockingbird. This is because he writes about issues of grace and law, freedom and bondage, spontaneity and calculation, in a forceful manner that is both analytic and feeling. He seems to have sight of the pastoral and experiential in a tone that is unusual for an academic theologian. He seldom loses sight of what we would call the ‘gut level’.
I don’t quite understand why Karl Holl’s theological work is not consulted more widely today. The usual explanation seems to be that he verged on German nationalism during a period which culminated in National Socialism, and that one of his students was Hirsch, who did become a Nazi. But when you read Holl, you have to look for right-wing tendencies. They are not present in the great majority of what he wrote. Only in his essay entitled “The Cultural Significance of the Reformation” does an element of pro-German cultural boosterism seem to come out at you. In almost everything else, from his lectures on Martin Luther to his studies of Greek Orthodoxy, which was a specialty, to his unusual defense of Christian Science in the light of a celebrated court case in Germany, you see a synthetic mind at work. He starts from Justification by Faith, practically understood and applied; and moves out from there, and in any number of directions.
Karl Holl was something!
For the next month or so, Mockingbird will present a Karl Holl Quote at the beginning of each week. We hope these short excerpts will create discussion. Today’s, the first Karl Holl Quote for the Summer of 2010, is from The Distinctive Elements in Christianity, T & T Clark, 1937. The original essay was published in the German language in 1925, and translated into English by Norman V. Hope. This excerpt is from pages 17 and 19. The emphases are by Mockingbird.
“I have never understood how any one could doubt that Jesus taught a new idea of God as compared with the Old Testament. The passages of the Old Testament where God is called Father may be examined and in them evidence of a certain progressive development found. At first only the nation ranked as God’s son, then in a special sense the King, and finally in the Psalms of Solomon the righteous individual. This approaches the standpoint of Jesus. But the principal element is still absent… Jesus, however, addresses Himself not to the righteous but to sinners … Such a belief in God as was preached by Jesus, according to which God gives Himself to the sinner, was the end of all serious moral effort.”
COMMENTS
42 responses to “Mockingbird 101: Karl Holl on the Shape (and End) of Moral Effort”
Leave a Reply
love this!
Of the great Twentieth-Century theologians, Holl is among those who stand the closest to the animating concerns of Mockingbird.
I completely agree. One of my main critera when looking for a Doktorvater was affinity with his work…thank God they still read him in Berlin!
Hands down the best theology text I read in college was "Distinctive Elements" — at the advice of my professor in Tubingen and to the utter contempt of my professor in the states. (He literally scoffed and said, "You WOULD be reading him, wouldn't you?")
Sorry for the length of this, but here are two passages from the NT which I would greatly appreciate some comments on in light of Holl's categorically dim view of all moral effort. It seems to me that "gospel promise" and "moral effort" are not so sharply contrasted in the NT. I realize that the first is from II Peter which many "mockingbirdians" consider highly suspect and of very little weight (it's that bad "Roman Catholic" part), but the second is from II Corinthians, which most everyone thinks Paul actually authored. Maybe Paul here was just falling back into his old, bad, "Jewish" ways? Or maybe he was reading too much Calvin? You tell me.
II Peter 1: 3-11:
"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence,by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,and virtue with knowledge, and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
I Corinthians 15: 56-58:
"The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain."
What's great about Holl is the way he helps to explain that morality is fruit born of a good gospel tree and therefore seemingly fresh & creative, never contrived. It is the moral life of the bound will. He shows how an ethic that is directly informed by justification by faith (and passive righteousness) breaks so strongly with both Kant and Aristotle as a kind of third unique strand of thought. I love "The Reconstruction of Morality". Here's a quote:
(p. 94) "Luther – unlike Kant, and in express opposition to Aristotle – did not think the highest goal is attained where rational deliberation makes the correct choice among various possibilities of action. Action is truly moral, truly free, only when the good has become so instinctive that the only thought that presents itself is the correct one and this is at once implemented."
Compare that with this one by Holmgren to see just how different the landscape in Holl's perspective is:
“The Christian moral life…involves many encounters with unknown places. We must frequently decide what to do in new and even confusing circumstances…We need Christian character that has been shaped through practice, and which is open to the voice of the Holy Spirit. Christian conscience involves each and every one of these things as we steer our course through life. We must both think and feel, we must both remember and plan, and we must both hear and act. Involving all of these aspects of ourselves, conscience is the process of bringing the fullness of the Christian vision to bear upon a single choice.” (from Ethics After Easter, p. 123)
"Action is truly moral, truly free, only when the good has become so instinctive that the only thought that presents itself is the correct one and this is at once implemented."
If this is true, then Paul was wasting his time, wasn't he, in writing Romans 12:1 and forward? Instead, he just should have said,
"Believe the gospel, and do what feels right."
Yeah Hammer, we all like Holl a lot better than St. Paul at Mockingbird. 😉
Everything hinges on whether or not the will of the Christian is bound. That is a matter that is disputed obviously. Articles 9 & 10 of the 39 Articles affirm the position that I signed onto at my ordination. Calvin teaches something different on this matter and I think he's your boy, no?
If you argue back, MC, then you, to my way of thinking, you prove it is still bound in the "pre-Christian" sense, because my response here is pure law in such a way that only a free person could avoid defending themself against (e.g., 2nd use trumping 3rd use in the life of the believer). If what I'm saying is "primarily" third use, you'll acquiesce. But I doubt you will, in which case, while third use may exist and is obviously present in the bible, it is trumped in it's apparent "primacy" by the 2nd use, even in the believer. I'm sort of being tongue and cheek here, but my point is that I don't think that Scripture avoids the third use, it just doesn't give it primacy. Give me my 2nd use and I'll give you your 3rd, but I won't give you its primacy. 🙂
Here's Luther, who, by the way, read his bible a heck of lot too:
Thesis 13 – Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits a mortal sin.
Thesis 14 – Free will, after the fall, has a power to do good only in a passive capacity, but it can always to evil in an active capacity.
Those of us who are persuaded by Luther and his interpretation of scripture on these matters, obviously find Holl to be an important thinker, as he has helped many of us better understand the implications of a Christian life that centers around the notion of Justification by Faith.
Scripturallly though, here are two verses that I like, which function along the lines of Holl's sentiment:
Matthew 7:18 —
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.
John 14:15 —
If you love me, you will obey what I command.
I need to read this guy..
"Articles 9 & 10 of the 39 Articles affirm the position that I signed onto at my ordination. Calvin teaches something different on this matter and I think he's your boy, no? "
John, We can chase our tails with "uses" all day long and get nowhere in terms of actually trying to understand how the two NT texts I have quoted relate to what Holl claims is the "gospel."
Also, I would like to know exactly where Calvin disagrees with either Article 9 or 10. Calvin obviously saw the continuing power of the bound will in the Christian or he would not have interpreted Romans 7 as he did, as the words of the CONVERTED St. Paul. And, for the record, Calvin is not my "boy", but he is my "Daddy" 🙂 But, all that aside, I do completely agree that any moral "work" is the fruit of free gospel forgiveness and one-way love, not good decision making born of good character born of good habits made possible by the free "born-again" will.
The sharp antithesis between the two testaments will disturb many a Presbyterians and New Perspective types, but Holl honestly saw the difference and its consequences for how we understand God.
Sorry, but I am still waiting on getting those two NT passages explained…
Michael, so far as I interpret the quote, the issue of the existence of exhortations in the NT is not in view, but instead he contrasts the differences in Jesus and the "OT"'s view of God relates to humanity. In the view of hte latter, God relates to humanity based upon moral standing, the special office of King, and ethnicity. in the latter, God relates to ALL humans on the basis of their sinfulness. This undermines the very moral scheme of the OT, which demands that works be done to continue to be God's people. The two couldn't be more different!
You rightly ask about II Peter… which so far as Paul is concerned is troublesome. Works are demanded as the guarentee of election.
II Cor. is not a problem. The context is not moral, but rather eschatatological. Paul first contrasts the death and sin of Adam, with the heavenly perfection of Christ, then speaks of the mixed state of man today, bein born of Adam. The final vision is one in which the vestigest of the peccator/death will gone and we will know heavenly perfection. Paul exhorts them to stand firm (in Christ?, in faith?) until that final day, knowing that their present work (mission) is not in vain.
Michael,
How do you understand them?
The issue here is never whether we are exhorted and/or spoken to as people who should be/do/work in some fashion, but whether we hear that in faith or unfaith, as law or gospel.
Using the NT as proof-texting a point can cut both ways (just ask the Mormons) and one is tempted to just put up other verses that would be just as "clear."
But, leaving the exegetical work to others more qualified, I'm more interested in what you're arguing for? We can read these passages as either law or gospel, depending on whether they are heard as terrifying and condemning, or life-giving and liberating.
The question about law/gospel is never as clear as "one is what you should do" and the other is "what god does for you," but rather how are they being used together to drive you back to Jesus?
If you read 2 Peter and quiver and quake at the thought of not "making your election secure" enough, then run back to the Comfortable words and rest in the promise of the Gospel "neither do I condemn you." If, on the other hand, you hear these words as encouragement and inspiration, then good on ya, as we say.
This is why the fundamental distinction has to be between faith and works, between gospel and law, because anything done in faith is not, by this definition, a work–it is a fruit. "Moral effort," was exposed by the cross as the height of idolatry, and preaching the cross, and the new birth of "eyes to see" remains the only remedy to a "natural" religion of self-help.
When we read 2 Peter, we are in a tricky situation, because it seems to be so clearly written by Pelagius, and the tendency is to try to find a "middle way" that allows for bringing back the law. But this is the leven we are told to avoid and while it is not easy, we're doing our best to keep it out.
There are two ways of understanding these texts and they are mutually contradictory. Either, we work with God and rely on our own strength to ultimately make it to the end, or we rely fully on Him. It can't be both. We certainly have some responsibility for "moral effort," in a horizontal sense–but this effort either affects how God sees us or doesn't–that's the question.
As far as I see it:)
Todd, Thanks for that. I don't think the Peter text actually means that "works" are demanded as a guarantee of election, which seems absurd, but rather that as the "fruit" of faith is produced within us, our faith grows more secure, in a subjective, psychological sense, not an objective sense.
But the major problem that I have with Holl and other German "sharp contrast" b/t the OT and NT interpretations is that they seem to either ignore the fact that along with the "law of Moses" came the temple sacrificial system as an unmerited, and substitutionary, means of grace and forgiveness, or, if it is not ignored, it is treated as a cultic method of buying God off with sheep, which is a completely perverted take on its original purpose. To say that the temple sacrificial system prefigured Christ is not to say that the OT writers completely understood what was going on, but is it to say that God did. Otherwise, what we are really saying is that the OT Jews got it wrong, that they misunderstood who God was and wrote a bunch of crap to support their misunderstanding and that Jesus came along and said to hell with it. I am not a "new perspective" guy at all, but I do believe that the OT was just as inspired by the Holy Spirit as the NT. The OT must be read in light of the NT, but that does not mean that the OT is full of it and is really just spouting Jewish tribalism or Jewish moralism when it says: "Thus saith the Lord." Jesus gives us the FULL and "perfect image of the invisible God", but this does not mean that the OT gives us a false image.
Hammer, I fully agree with the spirit of your comment and its call for a Christological unity of the two Testaments. I would suggest that, so far as the sacrificial system goes, Paul considers this part of "The Law" and the necessary obediance required if one is to maintain their coventantal status (whatever that means). Consequently, God forgives the sins of those who offer the right kind of sacrifice. Some call this "grace," but it is grace of a different king from the NT. It is not grace for the ungodly, but grace for those who perform the proper actions. Is this a false image of God? In light of Christ, I would say that it was a temporary and incomplete image. The OT seems very intent on concealing the exact identity of God. Does it point to Jesus' sacrifice? I and the book of Hebrews would say yes.
More broadly, Paul does see the OT as foundational for Christianity, especially the justification of Abraham (for more on this see Francis Waton's "Paul and the Hermeneutics of Faith").
Jady, Thanks for your helpful comments. My point in bringing up these texts is not to "proof text" any point, but to note that even passages written without debate by Paul are full of "exhortation" and "advice" to do and not do certain things, if we are at all honest in reading them. They are not merely "descriptive." And the "problem" is not confined to Peter, James, et al. although it may be more superficially apparent there. I think that since these texts were written to Christians, there is a lot that is going on as far as unspoken presupposition concerning the "cause" or "root" of the "works" being urged. This presupposition of received grace as the well-spring of any moral activity sometimes comes explicitly to the surface, for example in Romans 12:1. The problem with many is that Romans 12:1 and "God's mercy" is quickly forgotten and in its place some "new, improved" version of the law is seen as a means to generate "Christian" activity for those who now can "do it" with their Holy Spirit helper.
Todd, you wrote:
"I would suggest that, so far as the sacrificial system goes, Paul considers this part of "The Law" and the necessary obediance required if one is to maintain their coventantal status (whatever that means).
"Consequently, God forgives the sins of those who offer the right kind of sacrifice. Some call this "grace," but it is grace of a different king from the NT. It is not grace for the ungodly, but grace for those who perform the proper actions."
This is a very interesting comment. I guess that I am not so sure that Paul says that much about the temple sacrificial system, one way or the other, but you may have a particular text in mind and I'd like to look at it. But it does seem that in the OT the sacrificial system is based on faith that God is taking away our sins through the means of a substitutionary sacrifice offered in faith. We come to the temple because we need to sacrifice because we have sinned and are unrighteous, not as a further expression of our righteousness. Of course, as in everything, human nature twists this and everything else into a personal merit badge. But the same thing could be said about faith in Jesus, that it is a "work" that is demanded of us sinners. I think not, but many seem to see it that way.
Now it is true, and supremely important and "new", that God himself makes this sacrifice of Jesus, not us. That is something new and jarring. It is and should always remain shocking that God himself offers up himself for those who not only fail the jot and tittle test but who actually hate God. This is the new revelation of God in Christ, and one reason among many why the new perspective is so full of it.
MC is asking some great questions in this thread! And as I hope folks here are realizing, not in a "contra Luther" fashion. MC (as I have discovered in the last several months) has a lot of love for sola gratia, for Jesus as the friend of sinners, and a real allergy to neo-Evangelical demands for moralistic yardsticks in our Christian life.
But back to the diff b/w Luther and Calvin (Bible aside)… – "That's right, I said it" (Chris Rock) – And I've never discussed the issue with you or on this blog not once before.
The difference has to do not with the "3rd use" and whether or not it exists and is found in the Bible, but whether or not it is "primary" in the life of the Christian/Church. Calvin says yes. Luther says no (at least in his Galatians commentary and according to Elert). If you want to call 2nd use in the life of believers "3rd Use" fine, but that's semantics.
If we can receive the Law (as believers) with more pleasure than pain, then Calvin's idea holds water, but the 39 block the notion that concupiscence (which entails the believers apprehension of the Law) loses its primacy in the life of the believer by reminding us of its continued presence and by warning against Pelagiansim, thereby setting the stage for a service every week that begins with a reading of Jesus' summary of the law followed by the congregation's response of "lord have mercy" and ending with communion.
In a simple sense, the difference is this: If you read Holl and think: "Awesome!" you're probably enamored with justification by faith. If you don't like it, then you probably spend a lot of time thinking about ethics or perhaps you believe in the primacy of the 3rd Use in the life of a believer, and a quote like Holl's would leave you with nothing to do on Sunday unless some un-believers show up.
Church life is entirely shaped according to the _primary_ use of the Law. One service ends in exhortation, the other ends on the cross. Cranmer has a lower estimation of the Christian's moral character than does Calvin. Both believe in 2nd and 3rd use though, and I'm not suggesting that 3rd doesn't exist, or that it's not in the Bible. I just hope that it won't define church life (which it already does in most churches of all stripes unfortunately).
Now back to your exegesis of the one or two uniquely most Pelagian passages in all of the NT, and not written by Paul, a passage which is accounted for as standing in tension with Paul's emphases by the NT itself in multiple passages – Gal 2, and especially in that same book in Chapter 3 vv 15-16 ).
In effect, these are questions of emphasis. We both agree Appetite for Destruction is a great album. But is "Sweet Child" a more important song than "Welcome to the Jungle"? Do we get to good fruit through talking about fruit or by acknowledging its absence? Through virtue or through repentance/faith? Cue: Trent.
I know I'm being flip, and Michael, you are my friend and I don't think we're on very different pages. Immediately wanting to take issue with Holl and then suggesting it has nothing to do with a Calvinistic picture of church life and the "biblical theology" that often accompanies such leanings makes me scratch my head. Maybe there's no connection at all, but I'd rather critique Calvin than you, the law's function, than a fellow believer's compassionate heart.
"Sweet Child of Mine" = Passive Righteousness
"Welcome to the Jungle" = Active Righteousness
John, There is a lot about me that should justifiably make you scratch your head. I am just not going to get into a "uses" debate because I think it is almost always "useless" in the sense that words fly around without any clear definitions. But I will say this: As I understand it anyway, Luther never used the term "third use", and Calvin's discussion of it is extremely attenuated, despite the many drumbeats in support of and in raging opposition to his supposed position on the subject. One thing I would note about Luther and Calvin, and the vast gulf between them and the neo-Lutherans, is a very active and literal understanding of hell, and when they say that "the law condemns" they mean sends you to hell, not makes you feel inadequate. So when Calvin says that for the Christian, the law no longer condemns, he means it no longer condemns the believer to hell, not that it has no "second use" or even that the "second use" is not primary. In fact, Calvin says that the most crucial thing for the Christian is prayer, and that the most crucial thing in prayer is confession and forgiveness. Now, to my thinking, no one could or would say such a thing who saw "exhortation to holiness" as the most important factor in a Christian's life (like most rah-rah chruches, and, sad to say, most "Reformed" churches). I know Calvin says that the law can act as a whip to spur the Christian on to good works, but he says the same thing about music. Part of the problem is the way language was used at that time, and part of it is that Calvin, like Luther, had his lapses. cf."On the Jews and Their Lies", by Mr. Grace himself 🙂
In the Holl quote itself I can't see any reference to Luther nor to Calvin.
And it seems to refer to the teachings only of Jesus rather than of Paul or Peter.
Hammer- your interpretation of the sacrificial system as an expression of faith, rather than a means of obtaining righteousness- is not to be found in the OT. It is most striking that Paul makes no reference to the sacrificial system. He refers indirectly to it when he speaks of the law.
Paul, you right that the thread has strayed from Mark 2:17 – "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners."
Michael,
You said: One thing I would note about Luther and Calvin, and the vast gulf between them and the neo-Lutherans, is a very active and literal understanding of hell, and when they say that "the law condemns" they mean sends you to hell, not makes you feel inadequate.
I may be mistaken, but I don't know anyone who is routinely referenced here as a Lutheran theologian who would even come close to affirming this statement!
The beauty of "Lutheran" theology–at least the ones that we're following on here–is that there is not such a clear distinction between "going to hell" and life lived outside of faith in the Gospel. The idea of "going to hell," like death itself, is an abstraction–but the terror of both can manifest through the law in a variety of ways–and that is what we are teasing out here.
It seems that the hard and fast distinction between the two has contributed to the idea that the Gospel is a one time get-out-of-hell card, but real life is lived in mimetic obedience to the law. This is, not incidentally, where the non-biblical and misguided separation between justification and sanctification comes from—the idea that we are so grateful to have gotten out of hell that we live our lives in joyful gratitude.
But this is not really the type gratitude that we are talking about here, because that is the type illustrated by the end of Saving Private Ryan, one where we look on the sacrifice of Jesus as something terrible and awful which should motivate us to be thankful we're not there. This is why much "preaching" of the cross concerns how terrible and awful it was–rightly so–but it was only that awful because of the dire situation we are already in now not just the one that we may someday face.
Real gratitude comes not from recognizing how terrible life would be without Jesus, but by realizing that we "who were dead in our trespasses and sins," are now alive by faith in Jesus. Pastorally, this is a big difference. It does not really change the "orthodoxy" of either camp–thus the superficial convergence–but it continues to affect preaching/teaching/etc.
Anyway, there is more to be said there, but who exactly is arguing for the idea that the law solely makes you feel inadequate?
Certainly that is a function of the Law in the conscience, but Reformed soteriology rests on an equally subjective need to "feel the weight of your sins." I don't see the difference.
As far as Luther and Calvin go, most people agree that there differences between the two "camps," broadly understood, and, in fact, the discussion between the two is very much alive and well across the world.
As in Germany in the EKD, and as we've seen in the WHI, Reformed and Lutheran can come together on many issues, but at the end of the day, there remain substantial differences over the very thing that we find most interesting here: the distinction between Law and Gospel.
We can come together in a broad sense, but when we get to the intricacies–like those to which the Holl quote alluded—then we're naturally going to come up against disagreements.
If we're actually going to be faithful to not only the men but the traditions they represent in any form, then it will continue to be fruitless to try and chalk these disagreements up to semantics, or devolve into us trying to defend Luther vs. Calvin or something like that.
Like you, I'm most interested in what the Bible has to say about all of this, but there is nothing wrong with standing on the shoulders of giants, as it were.
Maybe Calvin was right and Luther was wrong—that would be a better discussion than saying that they both, when all was said and done, really didn't disagree.
Anyway, love to you, my friend!
Jady
"Therefore, works do not belong to the Gospel, as it is not a law; only faith belongs to it, as it is altogether a PROMISE and an offer of divine grace… But you may reply, is there not also much law in the Gospel and in the Epistles of Paul? and, again, many PROMISES in the writings of Moses and the prophets? Answer: THERE IS NO BOOK IN THE BIBLE IN WHICH BOTH ARE NOT FOUND. GOD HAS ALWAYS PLACED SIDE BY SIDE BOTH LAW AND PROMISE."
Martin Luther, Sermon for the Third Sunday in Advent.
Michael. .
I don't understand the triumphalistic shouting:) ha.
Who is arguing something contrary to what you've quoted?
IMHO, the Holl quote is arguing that the idea of God as gracious in the OT has to be imported from his self-revelation in Jesus from the New–it is not evident that he is the "God who justifies the Ungodly" in the Old Testament. We can read that now, but only in light of the cross. But, I don't feel it necessary to defend Holl at every point, so he may certainly have gone beyond where I would be comfortable.
The question, as it always has been, is not whether law and gospel exist in every book of the bible, but how those are distinguished. And, again, the art of that distinction–otherwise known as being a pastor/theologian (of all believers:)–is much more subtle than imperatives vs. indicatives or some such salvation by syntax or theory:)
What we have that is different than those in the OT is a specific content of that promise that was a shock even their most faithful. Certainly, we can affirm that the "heroes of the Faith," were saved by Faith in the promise alone, but, it seems, that they, unlike us, had no idea of exactly what that promise would look like. . .
Jady, Glad to see that the Luther quote has brought you around…now I'm down to working on Todd 🙂
Michael—You've lost me. Not that I'm worried about agreeing with you—but maybe:)
Michael, glad to know that you and Jady have achieved a level of agreement and peaceable truce. But far be it from me to disagree with Luther! If he said it, then it is true.
(though, I would say that I'm somewhat perplexed by his very broad use of the term "promise" and how quickly a promise can be Gospel, for example, the treatment of Lev. 18:5, and Matthew 19:17. in his 1935 commentary on Galatians)
Jady, I was just messin' with you 😉 It is really impossible to know from this little quote what Holl's position is, but it seems to indicate that Holl believed that Jesus taught something that was not only "new", but that was actually antithetical to any OT "Jewish" conception of God. This may not be what Holl taught, I don't know. So, I don't mean to diss Holl, even if the Nazis loved him. (JUST KIDDING, and a bow to Stampdawg)
But my understanding is that the OT, as you say, does not have the particularized conception of the full extent of God's grace to the world in the sacrificial, atoning death and resurrection of Jesus, the Lamb of God. However, the very fact that Jesus is called the Lamb of God, and that his death is called sacrificial in the NT, indicates to me a strong continuity with the OT. The NT, and the sayings of Jesus in it, see faith and God's grace as strongly present, and objectively present, in the OT. Hebrews 11 is a good example. These are all people who are objectively present in the text of the OT and are counted as people of faith. Their faith is in God's provision of a new home, "not built by human hands" i.e. a gift from God. All of them are OT figures, and some of them are not Jewish. The NT calls us all "children of Abraham", and the claim that Abraham' faith in God's promise was accounted to him as righteousness is objectively present in the OT text, it is not imported into the text by NT writers. Jesus himself after his resurrection is said to speak to his disciples and "open the (OT) scriptures concerning himself as actually present in the OT text.
Now, what is "new" with Jesus and the NT revelation is that God himself gives himself as an atoning sacrifice for sinners, that God himself by free gift gives even faith in God's own imputed righteousness. There is some hint even of this unmerited sovereign, saving action of God, disconnected from human merit, in the OT in the repeated refrain of "I am the God who brought you out of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" and several places in the OT where God says "I did not chose you as a people because of your righteousness" and God saying, I am faithful to my promise to David even in the face of your open rejection of me, but these are hints at the full understanding of God's free gift of himself to sinners that is fully present in Jesus. Anyway, that's at least a taste of how I see the "continuity/discontinuity" issue.
Michael,
I think that we are pretty much in agreement as far as the concepts of faith and grace go, but what I resist (not that you are doing this) is to try and import Christian ideas back into the everyday lives of OT people. Were it so clear that Jesus was the end of the Law as they knew it, he may have met a different fate.
Todd–as for equating "promise" with the Gospel, that language comes directly from Paul in Romans 4 where he talks about how the promise to Abraham was appropriated by faith, not by works. . . but I think that the distinction between the two words is still helpful.
I could promise to rob your house–that's not Gospel:)
Anyway, I do find the relative silence from some Lutheran theologians on the OT with respect to Law/Gospel understanding interesting, because were Luther to have been separated into a modern academic theological setting, he would have most certainly been a professor of Old Testament studies.
Not incidentally, his "gospel breakthrough" had as much to do with his initial lectures on the Psalms (1513) and then his Romans lectures before he put the pieces together. . .
Jady- I agree on the linking of the words promise and gospel, especially in reference to the OT. Though sometimes it seems that Luther is trying to extract promise from something which on plain read seems to be law. I understand the confusing overlap of the two and why the distinction between the two is an art, but it seems to take alot of gymnastics to make "I am the Lord thy God" into Gospel.
Todd. .
I think that "I am the Lord your God" is a perfect example of the law/gospel, promise/threat distinction.
"I will marry you," for instance, could be a very "Gospel" thing to say in the proper context. There could be other contexts where this was not so much the case.
I think this is a case where talking about "Gospel" outside of its specific theological setting can breakdown.
It is rightly said, IMHO, that Luther was "saved" by his Gospel understanding of the promise inherent in the 1st commandment as opposed to threat–which came by faith.
I understand the need to artfully distinguish between Law and Gospel and the various theological possibilities open to a given text, but "I am the Lord thy God" comes in the address at Sinai and the ratification of a covenant that would mean the destruction of the people of Israel! The Lord who addresses the Israelites is one who will judge the nation for its sin beginning in the wilderness and culminating in the exile. While it is the same God as the God of Jesus and the Gospel, as a statement I do not find a promise, but a threat.
Todd, The NT is full of Paul's warnings to believers that God is gracious and very patient, but will judge them severely, in a temporal sense, if they do not repent from their sin and turn again to him. You seem to be reading the OT without reference to any text that concerns "grace", while reading the NT equally without reference to any text concerning "judgment." As Luther says, both are in both, but more of grace in the NT, to be sure.
Michael,
I don't think that what is happening in the OT can be considered "grace" in a full sense–particularly for those going through it—because Grace had not come yet.
Luther rightly saw that the OT was full of Grace, but only in light of the New. . .
but this is, of course, a fairly complicated subject:)
The constant OT refrain, "I am the God of Abraham, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage", sounds like "grace" to me.
Michael, Yes, you rightly point to God's relationship to Abraham and his seed. It is fountain head of grace in the OT! The law, which came 430 years later, complicated God's relationship with Israel in a way that obscured the original clarity. Deuteronomy 9 in particular outlines this ambiguous pull-and-tug between God's judgment of Israel for its transgression of the Sinai covenant and the appeal to God's covenant with Abraham. This is a theme which, of course, is maximized by St. Paul in Galatians and Romans.
Michael,
Would you then say that the "Gospel" is present in the OT, just not explicitly in the same way as it is the the new?
Again, this would seem to make the cross a bit of an overstatement—Jesus could have come and just set things straight. "Hey guys, just be like Abraham."
Todd, As I read the OT, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son. That's a pretty tough "demand", tougher than anything in the 10 Commandments. It seems to me that God gave the Law, not to obscure any existing "clarity" but to further clarify His character, and us in relation to it. Nowhere does Paul, Jesus or any NT passage that I know of say that the Law "obscures" God. What Paul says is that, for the Jews, a veil is over their eyes and remains as to what the Law is ultimately intended and not intended to accomplish. Now, we may not like or agree with the God-character that the Law clarified, or we may embrace the Law for all the wrong reasons, but that does not mean when the Law was given it obscured God. It did not fully reveal God, however. This was done in the person of Jesus and him only.
But, we must also acknowledge that in this "Law" God says, be kind to the sojourner and stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt, from which I delivered you. In other words, be gracious because I was gracious to you. Now, one can of course see this as a condemning "demand" to be nice, but it is no more so than Paul saying love your enemies because when we were enemies of God, Christ died for us. Again, we get back to what Luther says: both are in both. Anyway, that is just my two cents. I'm not a theologian and I'm not German. If I at least spoke German, I'm sure I would understand all this much better 🙂
Jay, The fulfilled "promise" is not in the OT, so if we mean by the "gospel", the "fulfilled promise", then, no, it is not there. But the promise of the yet to be fulfilled promise is there, beginning, in all places, in God's "curse" of Adam and Eve in the Garden, that "good news" was coming, but not yet (i.e. your seed will bruise his head) (I am not claiming this was understood except on some vague intuitive level before Jesus) I very much see Jesus as the Lamb of God, given for the sins of the whole world, not life coach to the whole world.