Gaffin, Paul an Theologian

PAUL AS THEOLOGIAN

A Review Article

RICHARD B. GAFFIN, JR.

ONE has to be impressed by the response which this book* has already found elsewhere. We may speak here of a consensus.

To note just several examples: Professor Peter Y. De Jong of Calvin Seminary considers it a volume characterized by "unusual insight, amazing erudition and balanced argumentation'', which bears "the promise of a large degree of permanent worth".1 He concludes that "As a study of Paul's thought it stands today without a peer".2 Professor Hendrikus Berkhof of Leiden prefaces his review with the title, "A Theological Event". Although he acknowledges that it sounds somewhat "hoogdravend", he still feels that such grandiloquence is in order to describe a book which is both "quantitatively and qualitatively a prodigious achievement".3 Professor R. Schippers of the Free University knows of people who, with a not entirely bad conscience, have allowed themselves to fall behind in their daily work because they found it so difficult to put the book down once they began reading ! In an extended review which is not without a considerable amount of sharply directed criticism, he refers to it as "a remarkable phenomenon in our Reformed theologizing" .4

All these superlatives will not come as too great a surprise to readers of the Journal, who by this time are familiar with the high quality of the work of Professor Herman Ridderbos of Kampen. The appearance of his major writings in English during the past decade {Paul and

* Herman Ridderbos: Paulus: Ontwerp van zijn théologie. Kampen: J. H. Kok. 1966. 653. Fl. 39,50.

1 Torch and Trumpet, May-June, 1967, p. 33. 2 Ibid., p. 34. 3 "Een Theologisch Evénement", In de Waagschaal, reprinted in the

bulletin of the Theologische Hogeschool, Kampen, Vol. II, no. 3 (Nov., 1966), pp. 59 ft.

* "Over een théologie van Paulus, I", Gereformeerd Weekblad, Vol. 21, no. 49 (June 3, 1966), p. 353.

204

PAUL AS THEOLOGIAN 205

Jesus, 1958; The Coming of the Kingdom, 1962; The Authority of the New Testament Scriptures, 1963) as well as his commentary on Gala-tians (1953) and the short but valuable collection of studies, When the Time Had Fully Come (1957) have already earned for him on this side of the Atlantic the reputation for penetrating, balanced, and clearly expressed scholarship which he has long enjoyed in his native Holland. There can be no question, however, that Paulus represents a new and unprecedented pinnacle of achievement, so much so that one has the feeling, especially in view of its potential for influencing the Reformed world, that it may well prove to be one of the most significant books of the decade, perhaps even of a generation. At any rate, it is fair to say that in both scope and insight it surpasses his monumental study on the kingdom, which many have justly come to regard as a magnum opus. Certainly we shall have to begin thinking of these two volumes as the foci which define the ellipse of an already remarkable literary career. It is challenging to think what may yet be forthcoming.5

Ridderbos has set himself to the awesome task of giving us an outline or sketch of Paul's theology. This necessarily gives Paulus a magnitude and architechtonic quality which, if for no other reason, makes review especially difficult. It should be recognized at the outset that it will be a long time before the last word on Paulus in all its parts is spoken. The final measure of it is not to be had in this (or any single) review. It seems best, then, to try to assess it from a particular angle. Consequently, in what follows the governing interest for the most part is to bring to expression and underscore particularly those areas where Ridderbos, as Reformed exegete, adopts viewpoints and takes positions which go beyond or perhaps, at times, one should even say, diverge from the tradition in which he stands. This should prove a necessary contribution to the discussion which this important book deserves, because, in my opinion, it is precisely in these bold conclusions together with the basis upon which they rest that the significance of Paulus and its potential for influence lie. It should be noted clearly, however, that "go beyond", "diverge", and "bold" in the immediately preceding sentences are not to be taken as in themselves pejorative. If anything, they reflect the period of transition through which the Reformed world increasingly recognizes itself to be passing. To be sure, it will be necessary along the way to raise

s Most recent is a commentary on the Pastoral epistles, De Pastoralen Brieven (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1967).

206 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

questions and voice criticism. The primary interest, however, is to let Ridderbos speak and to note carefully the positions which he takes.

I proceed first by giving a chapter by chapter survey, with the indicated stress, which will do no more than touch upon highlights, and then by dealing more explicitly with several points in which the book's programmatic significance appears to lie. Because an English translation is not yet available, there will be a tendency to quote with greater frequency and at greater length than might otherwise be the case.

I t is clear that there are all sorts of doors which lead into the structure of Paul's preaching and teaching. But what is the main entrance? It is with this question that Ridderbos begins. One recalls at this point his approach in "The Redemptive-Historical Character of Paul's Preaching".6 But what was there presented so tersely and provocatively here receives much fuller and extended treatment. In chapter I Ridderbos seeks to give an answer against the background of the history of Pauline interpretation. Because this chapter is so basic to the conception of the entire book, it must be surveyed and examined more carefully than some of the others.

Passing over briefly the Reformation stress upon justification by faith and the forensic elements in Paul's teaching, and the reaction of pietism and 18th century moralism in emphasizing the pneumatic and ethical aspects, he concentrates attention upon the "Paulusforschung" of post-Enlightenment, "historical-critical" exegesis. Here he locates four main trends: (1) F. C. Baur and the Tübingen School, which find the key to Paul in the concept πνβυμα and the πνβνμα-σάρί;

contrast which is interpreted in terms of the Hegelian antithesis be

tween the absolute and the finite; (2) the liberal interpretation which

develops Paul's teaching about the Spirit in the light of traditional

Greek anthropology, virtually ignores the forensic elements, and turns

Paul into an advocate of ethical idealism ; (3) the "history-of-religions"

approach which seeks to explain Paul and especially his teaching on

the sacraments in the light of contemporary syncretistic cults and

oriental mystery religions; and (4) eschatological interpretation,

6 When the Time Had Fully Come (Grand Rapids, 1957), pp. 44 ff. It would not be entirely inaccurate to say — and this should tantalize many an English reader — that in a sense Paulus is simply an expansion and development (653 pp. !) of this little essay.


which began gaining ground following the appearance in 1930 of Albert Schweitzer's book on Paul's mysticism.7

I t is this eschatological or (what for Ridderbos is virtually synonymous) redemptive-historical (heilshistorisch) approach with its related emphasis that Paul is to be understood primarily against an Old Testament, Semitic rather than a Greek or oriental background that dominates present-day interpretation. And it is here that Ridderbos finds what he has been looking for, the entrance way to Paul's theology. " I t is within this great redemptive-historical framework that the whole of Paul's preaching must be understood and all its parts find their place and hold together organically".8

Ridderbos, however, is not unaware that widely diverse, even conflicting points of view are comprehended by the rubric, "eschatological interpretation". One must with Rigau9 speak of "L'eschatologie et les eschatologies" (p. 35). Only "with great reserve" (p. 34) is he willing to speak of a growing consensus in contemporary interpretation, and he seeks to distinguish carefully his own position. C. H. Dodd's "realized eschatology" fixes attention upon the importance of the death and resurrection of Christ for Paul's eschatology but is to be rejected because it fails to see that Paul considers the future resurrection of believers equally important (pp. 35 f.). Bultmann is credited for recognizing the importance of future elements in Paul's teaching but his position is even more emphatically rejected (pp. 36 ff.). His interpretation (à la Heidegger) of Paul's eschatology in the light of his anthropology is so radical and one-sided that the result is an eschatology sub specie hominis (pp. 38, 47), an eschatology which is reduced to a vehicle for conveying certain anthropological insights, a "Daseinsverständnis", and which makes speaking about an "escha-tologische heilsgeschiedenis" impossible.10 Bultmann, by the way,

ι Die Mystik des Apostels Paulus (Tübingen, 1930); Eng. trans., The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London, 1931).

8 "Het is binnen dit grote heilshistorische kader, waarin heel de prediking van Paulus verstaan moet worden en al de onderdelen daarvan hun plaats ontvangen en organisch met elkander samenhangen" (p. 34). "Het is onder dit [eschatologische of heilshistorische] hoofdgezichtspunt en onder deze noemer, dat al de afzonderlijke themata van Paulus' prediking in hun eenheid en onderling verband verstaan en doorzien kunnen worden" (p. 40).

9 B. Rigaux, "L'interprétation du paulinisme dans l'exégèse récente", Littérature et Theologie Pauliniennes, Recherches Bibliques, V (Bruges, 1960), 30.

10 "Van een eschatologische heilsgeschiedenis in de zin van een naar


is a frequent target of Ridderbos' criticisms (cf., e. g., pp. 91 f., 106 f., 554 f.).

In contrast to these distortions, Ridderbos finds the most adequate explanation of Paul's eschatology that which takes seriously its historical "backbone" and does justice to both realized and future elements, namely, that view which recognizes the importance both of the Resurrection and of the Parousia of Christ for Paul and does not seek to dissolve in an idealistic or existentialistic fashion the resulting tension between "already" and "not yet" in the life of the believer, with which Paul is so concerned. It is with a redemptive-historical method of interpretation ("heilshistorische verklaringswijze", p. 39), understood in this sense, that Ridderbos comes to deal with the contents of Paul's teaching."

In the opinion of the reviewer there can be no question respecting the propriety of this approach. No small part of the significance of Paulus as a whole is that it demonstrates this so convincingly. A little surprising, however, is Ridderbos' observation that it is an approach which is brought to expression by Cullmann "in a very representative way" (p. 38). To be sure, one may note here a formal similarity. But in so placing himself on a line with Cullmann, does Ridderbos do himself justice? Among other things, does not Cullmann's failure to distinguish sufficiently between creation and redemption in the teaching of the New Testament12 give to his understanding of Paul's view of "Heilsgeschichte" and the tensions betwen "already" and "not yet" a cast which is alien to Ridderbos' own views? Is not Cullmann's "functional" Christology, which Ridderbos himself explicitly rejects (p. 68), an integral and necessary concomitant of his view of "Heils-geschichte"? In a word, should not Ridderbos delineate his "heilshistorisch" approach more carefully than he has done?

Along a somewhat different line, I find it strange that a reference

de voleinding voortschrijdende reeks van reeds plaats gevonden en nog te verwachten gebeurtenissen in Christus, kan in deze interpretatie uiteraard geen sprake zijn" (p. 37).

11 It should be noted that Ridderbos has already found this polarity between fulfillment and expectation to be the key to the teaching of Jesus (De komst van het koninkrijk (Kampen, 1950), cf. especially pp. 102 ff. (Eng. trans., pp. 104 ff.)). Paulus may thus be seen as a counterpart to his study on the kingdom.

12 So, e. g., "Die Schöpfung im Neuen Testament", Ex auditú verbi (Theologische opstéllen aangeboden aan Prof. Dr. G. C. Berkouwer, Kampen, 1965), pp. 56-72.


to the work of Geerhardus Vos is lacking in this chapter. His study,

The Eschatological Aspect of the Pauline Conception of the Spirit,1* rep

resents a milestone in the history of Pauline studies and shows him

as a scholar well in advance of his time. With a clarity unmatched

by his contemporaries Vos demonstrates, as the title suggests, not

only that Paul's eschatology and his teaching concerning the Spirit

may not be isolated from or opposed to each other, but also that for

Paul the work of the Spirit, including ethical renewal, is itself the re

alization of the eschaton. In his classic, The Pauline Eschatology,

which appeared in the same year (1930) as did Schweitzer's influential

work, he is no less clear than the latter that eschatology is the key

to the whole of Paul's theology.1* Admittedly Vos' influence has been

restricted for the most part to Reformed circles, but the failure to

note his work on the part of one, like Ridderbos, who stands in the

same tradition of interpretation is puzzling.15

These criticisms, however, must not be overdrawn. It is difficult

to express adequately my enthusiasm and appreciation for this first

chapter. It is worth the price of the book itself which at roughly $10

is still a bargain! Anyone who has set himself to the task of dealing

with Paul's teaching and has experienced the sinking feeling which

comes as the confusing welter of interpretations closes over him can

only marvel at the ease with which the whole is here surveyed and its

prominent features are brought to expression. For better or for worse

any sort of comprehensive understanding of Paul and a mastery of

his interpreters can not be separated. One must be grateful then that

Professor Ridderbos begins his study with what conceivably he could

have omitted, a survey of the history of this interpretation, a survey

which, although not so detailed as some others, is equalled by none

in its clarity.

χ3 Biblical and Theological Studies (by the Members of the Faculty of Princeton Theological Seminary, New York, 1912), pp. 209-259.

^ "It will appear throughout that to unfold the Apostle's eschatology means to set forth his theology as a whole" (Gerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (Grand Rapids, 1961), p. 11). "We hope presently to show that, as a matter of fact, not only the Christology but also the Soteriology of the Apostle's teaching is so closely interwoven with the Eschatology, that, were the question put, which of the strands is more central, which more peripheral, the eschatology would have as good a claim to the central place as the others" (Ibid., pp. 28 f.).

*s The criticism applies only to this opening chapter. Elsewhere, especially pp. 555 ff., reference is made to The Pauline Eschatology.

2 1 0 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

In terms of the design of the book, chapter two is the most impor

tant. Ridderbos seeks to uncover the foundational elements (grond-

structuren) of Paul's thought. Here many established exegetical

insights are reconfirmed, but there is also much that is new and stimu

lating. It is significant to note that christology is the almost exclusive

concern. This must be taken as an indication not only of the validity

but of the fruitfulness of Ridderbos' approach. His "heilshistorische

inzet" brings him inevitably and directly to the person and work of

Christ rather than to some particular aspect of soteriology (e. g. the

Reformation tradition and its stress upon justification by faith) as

that which is most basic to Paul's preaching and teaching and which

gives them their structure.

The specific character of the apostle's christology, however, must

be carefully noted. It is a "heilsfeiten-Christologie" (p. 46), a chris

tology concerned with redemptive accomplishment. This means,

then, since the Resurrection of Christ, "the great, central redemptive

event" ("het grote centrale heilsfeit"), brings in the new aeon (p. 53),

that christology and eschatology belong together and that the latter

is also central to Paul's teaching (pp. 46 ff.). Christology, however,

determines eschatology and not vice versa. Paul does not force the

work of Christ into the mold of traditional eschatological speculation.

He was not an "aeon-theologian" (pp. 50 f.). Rather his eschatology

is "Christus-eschatologie" (p. 46).

There can be no doubt regarding the importance of the economic

factor for Paul's christology. In the way Ridderbos stresses and de

velops this, however, he goes beyond Reformed exegesis to date.

This is made clear in what is the most startling and provocative offer

ing of this chapter. It has come to be recognized generally that Paul's

understanding of Christ as the "second Adam" or "last Adam" was

much more important for him than the limited occurrences of this

designation (I Cor. 15:45, cf. verse 22; Rom. 5:14) would seem to indi

cate. Along this line, Ridderbos not only seeks to show its importance

but also to establish that it was, for Paul, the fundamental christologi-

cal conception. In a somewhat involved and difficult line of exegesis

which cannot be entered into here, all of the other designations, in

cluding "Son of God", βίκων του 0eo9 (II Cor. 4:4; Col. 1:15; note

that μορφή [Phil. 2:6] is taken as a synonym for βίκων, p. 74) and

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσβως (Col. 1:15), derive their meaning from

the significance of Christ as "second Adam". "But it indeed must be

maintained, however, that Christ's divine power and glory, even al-


ready in his pre-existence, are described in categories which are derived from his significance as the second Adam". "Starting from the resurrected Christ as the second man or the last Adam, I Corinthians 15, and from his glory as the image of God, II Corinthians 4, Paul contemplates the divine Sonship of Christ in its entirety...". "In other words, all the categories which more exactly describe his significance as the Firstborn of all creation, are derived from Christ's significance as the second Adam".16

The implications of these conclusions are many and far-reaching and difficult to assess. Among other things they mean that "Son of God" and "Image of God" have virtually the same reference (pp. 67 ff.).1? Chapter two deserves careful and extended study. With this in view, it will always be necessary to remember that Ridderbos, although he gives such pronounced stress to the economic factor, is concerned to avoid attributing to Paul a purely functional christology. This he makes particularly clear in his treatment of Paul's references to Christ as "the Son of God". The pre-existence of Christ with the Father must be taken into account in considering every occurrence of this title (p. 68). The confession of Christ as the Son of God in the supra-historical and pre-historical ("boven- en voor-historische") sense of the word underlies all of Paul's preaching of the historical and future revelation of Christ (p. 67). His stress on Christ's pre-existence is so pronounced that it is impossible to think that the divine attributes which he attributed to Christ are conceived of exclusively as the result of his exaltation (pp. 67 f.). For Paul, Christ's existence as the Son is equivalent to his existence as God himself.18 Still (and here

16 "Maar wel moet worden geconstateerd, dat Christus' goddelijke macht en heerlijkheid, ook reeds in zijn praeëxistentie, worden omschreven in de categorieën, die aan zijn betekenis als de tweede Adam outleend zijn" (p. 73). "Uitgaande van de opgestane Christus als tweede mens of laatste Adam, 1 Kor. 15, en van diens heerlijkheid als Beeld Gods, 2 Kor. 4, beziet Paulus héél het goddelijk Zoonschap van Christus..." (p. 77). " . . . anders gezegd: aan Christus* betekenis als tweede Adam worden al de categorieën ontleend, die zijn betekenis als Eerstgeborene van alle schepsel nader omschrijven" (p. 85).

!7 "Men kan zelfs staande houden, dat Paulus met de naam Beeld Gods . . . juist 'das ewige Verhältnis des Vaters zum Sohn* heeft willen verduidelijken" (p. 71), quoting A. Schlatter, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, II (Stuttgart, 1910), 299.

18 "Voor hem is het zoon van God zijn van Christus niet anders dan het God zijn zelf" (p. 78).


Ridderbos finds an element of truth in Cullmann's position) for Paul

Christ's pre-existence must always be viewed as related to ("in haar

gerichtheid op") his redemptive-historical activity (p. 69). His exis

tence as the Son may never be abstracted from his existence as Re

deemer.10 It must always be remembered that an economic interest is

that which predominates and is determinative for Paul. The trans

position of redemptive-historical (heilshistorisch) into ontic (ontisch)

categories is the danger which constantly threatens the interpretation

of Paul's christology (p. 78). Whether or not this warning is given,

e. g., with traditional Reformed exegesis in mind, Ridderbos leaves

unsaid.

Chapter three deals with Paul's teaching on sin. Of special interest

is the treatment of the much discussed and disputed topic of anthro

pology. Ridderbos' point of departure is the distinction between the

"outer" and "inner" man (Rom. 7:22; II Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16), which

he understands in a general and formal way. The other anthropological

concepts, then, have their place in terms of this basic distinction.

σώμα, σαρξ, and μβλη serve to define the "outer" man, while vovs,

καρδία, ψυχή, and πνβΰμα describe the "inner" man from different

points of view. This way of structuring the material,20 although not

usual, seems to lend clarity to a difficult and complex subject.

One may not, however, on the basis of this distinction draw general

anthropological conclusions, for instance, that man consists of two

parts ("delen"), one more "real" ("eigenlijk") or "essential" ("we-

zenlijk") than the other (p. 122). It is not so much that man has an

external or internal side, but that as man he is both "external" and

"internal", that he exists in both these ways.21 An anthropological

dualism is not to be found in Paul. "Paul does not think dichoto-

mistically, and the term 'body', according to him, describes not only

man's external and tangible organization, which is enlivened by the

soul or spirit, but man himself (including his 'soul')".22 In thus joining

10 "Kortom, zijn Zoonschap en zijn Verlosser-zijn worden in Paulus' prediking nergens geabstraheerd" (p. 78).

30 Cf. H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, II (2. Afl., Tübingen, 1911), 12 ff.

21 "Eerder wijst het volledige: de uitwendige en inwendige 'mens1 in een andere richting; de mens 'heeft* niet alleen een uitwendige en inwendige zijde, maar hij is als mens zowel 'uitwendig' als 'inwendig', bestaat zowel op de ene als op de andere wijze" (p. 122).

22 " . . . Paulus niet dichotomistisch denkt en de term 'lichaam' bij


the consensus of those who hold that Paul views man "aspectivelly,

not partitively",23 Ridderbos illustrates the ever-increasing tendency

to place a question mark after the anthropology of traditional Re

formed dogmatics. That there are problems in this area few will care

to deny. And in the discussion of Pauline material it will certainly

be necessary to keep in view that, because of his heilshistorisch interest,

the Apostle's concern with man is primarily functional. But does this

factor in his anthropology any more than in his christology make the

asking of all ontological or "substantial" questions improper? Rid

derbos is not clear on this point.

It should be noted in passing that anthropology is dealt with in

the chapter on sin ("Het Leven in de Zonde"), in a subsection, "Man's

Depravity" ("Het bederf van de mens," p. 121). This is perhaps ap

propriate (again, in view of Paul's redemptive-historical interest).

But it is not without its dangers in that it can easily create the impres

sion that anthropology (including the idea of creation) and hamarti-

ology (and consequently, soteriology and eschatology) are coextensive

for Paul. This and related conceptions are all too widespread24 and

productive of serious distortion of the Apostle's teaching. They run

counter to his teaching concerning the historicity of the fall (Rom.

5:12 ff.) as well as a passage like I Corinthians 15:45 where he views

Adam as ψυχή prior to the fall (cf. I Tim. 2:13; I Cor. 11:7 ff.). Rid

derbos should have guarded himself more carefully here against pos

sible misunderstanding, perhaps with a clearer statement of the im

portance for Pauline thinking of the historicity of the fall.

Also in this chapter Ridderbos reaffirms his exegesis of Romans 7.

Already in his commentary (1959), he departed from the traditional

Augustinian-Reformed interpretation by attributing the tension de

scribed in verses 14 ff. to the situation of the unbeliever rather than

that of the believer, specifically, to the Jew struggling to keep the

hem niet slechts de, door de ziel of de geest tot leven te brengen, uitwendige en stoffelijke organisatie van de mens, maar de mens zèlf aanduidt (met inbegrip van zijn 'ziel')..." (p. 415).

« D. E. H. Whiteley, The Theology of Saint Paul (Philadelphia, 1964), p. 36.

24 Cf., e. g., E. Käsemann, "Gottesgerechtigkeit bei Paulus", Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, II (Göttingen, 1964), 192 f. (Eng. trans., "God's Righteousness in Paul", The Bultmann School of Biblical Interpretation: New Directions? (Journal for Theology and the Church, I, New York, 1965, pp. 109 f.)).


law.25 Here, for the most part, he deals with what at that time he recognized to be the chief objection to this interpretation,26 namely, that to attribute Paul's characterization of the " I " to the unbeliever "comes into conflict with the way in which Paul elsewhere judges the corruption of men apart from Christ".27

Ridderbos feels that this objection fails to take sufficient account of "the differentiated and refined picture" which Paul gives of the corrupting effects of sin (p. 137). Earlier, in another context, he warns against a "leveling"-treatment ("een nivellering") of Paul's teaching concerning the depravity of the inner man (p. 130). According to Paul, "A grasp of and zeal for what is good , . . . is not extinguished in all men in the same way. It is not in harmony either with the teaching of Jesus or that of Paul to deny to each man apart from Christ zeal for the law or desire for the good, or to consider it impossible that these things be found in him".28

One should probably not take exception to these statements in and of themselves. They are evidently not intended to qualify the need for the sinner's total renewal.29 I t is another question, however, whether they succeed in removing the difficulties of Ridderbos' interpretation. And there must still be some doubts concerning Ridderbos' own understanding of them when we find him concluding that, in the passage in question, Paul is making apologetic use of his own pre-Christian experience (p. 139). Missing in the entire discussion is a reference to Professor Murray's recent defense of the traditional Reformed position.30

2s H. Ridderbos, Aan de Romeinen (Commentaar op het Nieuwe Testament, Kampen, 1959), pp. 162 ff.

26 Ibid., p. 166. 27 "Met name moet dan de tegenwerping aan de orde komen, of hetgeen

hier van de 'inwendige mens', de 'noes', het 'ik-zelf gezegd wordt, wanneer men dit van de mens vóór of buiten Christus verstaan wil, niet in strijd komt met hetgeen elders bij Paulus van de totale corruptie van de mens buiten Christus wordt geoordeeld" (p. 135).

28 "Het begrip van en de ijver voor het goede zijn bij alle mensen, Joden en heidenen, onder de wet en zonder de wet, niet op gelijke wijze gedoofd. Het is noch met de leer van Jezus noch met die van Paulus in overeenstemming om aan ieder mens buiten Christus ijver voor de wet of begeerte naar het goede te ontzeggen of die in hem onmogelijk te achten" (p. 137).

29 "Aan de noodzaak van een totale vernieuwing doet dit niets af " (p. 137). 3° John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, I (The New International

Commentary on the New Testament, Grand Rapids, 1959), 256 ff.


Chapters IV-VII deal with the Atonement and the application of redemption to the individual believer. For the most part the discussion moves along traditional lines. The forensic, objective aspects are dealt with first: "The Revelation of the Righteousness of God" (chapter IV) and "Reconciliation" (chapter V), followed by a treatment of subjective renewal and transformation: "The New Life" (chapter VI) and "The New Obedience" (chapter VII). Unprecedented, however, in the abundance of valuable material in this section, is Ridderbos' repeated emphasis that even in the area of the applicatio Paul's primary concern is with the history of redemption (heilshistorisch) rather than the ordo salutis (heilsordelijk). This is a conclusion with far-reaching implications, some of which I shall try to assess below.

Chapters VIII-XI are concerned with the church and sacraments. Here Ridderbos is at his best, wading into problem areas, complex and heavily burdened with debate, and discussing them with a straightforwardness and clarity which is positively disarming, yet avoiding oversimplification and one-sidedness. Especially impressive is his treatment of baptism and the nature of the church. With respect to the latter, he finds two basic ecclesiological conceptions (hoofdaspecten) : "People of God" and "Body of Christ". The former represents the traditional point of view, derived from the Old Testament and taken over by Paul. The latter is Paul's own contribution (p. 364). Ridderbos proceeds to show the harmony of these two conceptions and to dispense with all attempts at making them competitors. He concludes, " 'Body of Christ' is the christological concentration of 'people of God', just as it is involved in the Headship of Christ that the redemptive-historical and pneumatic unity of the people of God is founded in Christ and made effective in fellowship with him".31 I pass over chapter XI, "The Building-Up of the Congregation" ("De Opbouw der Gemeente"), simply noting that in discussing from a redemptive-historical perspective matters like church order and discipline, charisma, gifts, and office many new insights demanding careful attention are introduced.

I t is in this section on the church, however, that we encounter, in the opinion of the reviewer, the most confusing and questionable part

31 " 'Lichaam van Christus' is de Christologische concentratie van 'volk Gods', gelijk ook in het Hoofd-zijn van Christus ligt opgesloten, dat de heilshistorische en pneumatische eenheid van het volk van God in Christus is gegrond en in zijn gemeenschap wordt geëffectueerd" (p. 441).


of the entire book. I refer to the discussion of the nature of election and God's purpose (pp. 380 ff.). It is especially necessary for the Reformed community on this side of the Atlantic to note carefully what Professor Ridderbos has to say, because he seeks to establish further a position which has already become well-entrenched in the Reformed churches in the Netherlands, showing itself, by the way, to be no respecter of denominational lines.32

Ridderbos begins with a discussion of Romans 9 similar to that which he first gave over a decade ago.33 His main point is that for Paul election is collective and temporal (historical) in character. Election is not a decree ("besluit", p. 383). Rather " 'Election' was used from of old in order to describe the way in which Israel became the people of God...". " . . . therefore 'election' describes the sovereign, gracious character of God's calling [my italics] of Israel, which is not motivated by the object of election". "And so God also preserves this sovereign, electing character of his saving work towards Israel".34 This electing activity may not be identified "with irrevocable, 'eternal' decrees, by which God once and for all time is supposed to have predestined the salvation or destruction of men". "Paul is not guided by an abstract concept of divine freedom but by the freedom of God's grace, as this grace has been manifested in the history of Israel". "The concept of election designates the omnipotence, not the deterministic character of God's work of grace and formation of his church".3*

32 Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, "Vragen rondom de Belijdenis", Gereformeerd Theologisch Tijdschrift, Vol. 63 (1963), pp. 10 ff. "Het lijkt mij onmis-kenbar, dat er inzake de verkiezingsleer een vrij diep verschil van inzicht bestaat in de vrijgemaakte kerken" (Ibid., p. 18, note 62).

33 Cf. "Israël in het Nieuwe Testament in het bijzonder volgens Rom. 9-11", Esegetica (Den Haag, 1955), pp. 45-51 ; Aan de Romeinen, pp. 227-231.

34 " 'Uitverkiezing* wordt van ouds gebruikt om de wijze aan te duiden, waarop Israël tot volk Gods is geworden..." (p. 384). " . . . daarom duidt 'uitverkiezing* het souvereine, niet door het voorwerp der verkiezing gemotiveerde, genadige karakter aan van Gods roeping van Israël" (p. 384). "En zo handhaaft God ook dit souvereine, uitverkiezende karakter van zijn heilswerk tegenover Israël..." (p. 385).

3s " . . . n iet . . . met onherroepelijke, 'eeuwige' besluiten, waarin God eens en voor altijd 's mensen behoud of onheil zou hebben gepraedestineerd" (p. 385). "Hierbij wordt Paulus niet geleid door een abstract begrip van goddelijke vrijheid, maar van de vrijheid van God's genade, zoals deze zieh in de geschiedenis van Israël heeft geopenbaard" (p. 384). "Het begrip van de verkiezing duidt de vrijmacht, niet de gedetermineerdheid van Gods genadewerk en van de formatie van zijn gemeente aan" (p. 385).


Against the background of these remarks one awaits with interest

what Ridderbos will have to say about Romans 8:29 f. and Ephesians 1.

He begins by recognizing that various concepts in these passages refer

to God's counsel and that Ephesians 3:11 speaks of God's "eternal

purpose" (p. 386). Moreover, against the position taken in the dis

sertation of H. Venema he maintains expressly that "evidence of

pre-temporal elements in Paul's teaching concerning election and

predestination may not be denied".36 It is to say the least disconcert

ing, then, when he turns next to deal with the function which the

various ττρο-concepts have in the whole of Paul's teaching, to find

him, so far as I can see, interpreting away and in effect denying what

he has just maintained. Ridderbos finds here exactly what he found

in Romans 9. References to the electing purpose of God (e. g., Eph.

1:11) indicate the "depth-aspect" ("diepte-aspect") of God's action, 11 the completely gratuitive" (uhet volstrekt gratuitieve") character of the

salvation given in Christ (p. 388), "the sovereign way in which God

calls man to faith and repentance and forms his Church in Christ"

(p. 395). "Thus the appeal to the purpose of God functions here

[Rom. 9:11] as proof that the formation of and membership in the

people of God rests only upon the antecedent, sovereign grace of God

and not on human works".37 Election is an action which takes place

in preaching (pp. 393 ff.). Reprobation need not bear a definitive

character ("geen defini tief karakter") and presupposes a situation

which is still "open" ("een nog 'open' situatie", p. 393). Every form

of "determinism" ("verkiezingsautomatisme en déterminisme", p. 393), of an abstract, causal predestinarianism (pp. 390, 391), every notion of a "secret decree" or a predestinated numerus clausus is foreign to Paul's way of thinking (p. 391).

This position38 does not only involve a radical shifting of emphasis; so far as the traditional Reformed understanding of election is concerned, I am unable to see in it anything but an outright repudiation.

36 " . . . laat zieh de evidentie van de vóór-tijdelijke dementen in de paulinische verkiezings- en praedestinatie-leer niet loochenen" (p. 388, note 55).

37 "Het beroep op het voornemen van God functioneert hier dus als bewijs, dat de formatie van en het toebehoren tot het volk van God enkel op de voorafgaande, souvereine genade van God en niet op menselijke werken berust" (p. 389).

38 Cf. G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election (Studies in Dogmatics, Grand Rapids, 1960), especially pp. 132-253 for a statement of views in many respects similar.


In dealing with it, however, it will not be proper hastily to label it

Arminian. Nothing would misrepresent Ridderbos' intention more.

"There is nothing that more contradicts Paul's teaching about salva

tion than that man becomes God's work and new creation by virtue

of an exercise of his own will". "So far is it removed from Paul's way

of thinking that in the relationship between election and preaching

he takes his point of departure in individual human freedom".39 Be

yond this observation, I do no more here than raise the following

questions. If we are to conform to what Paul teaches in Romans 8:29

and Ephesians 1, must we not see God's electing purpose (προθβσις),

although it is certainly never to be abstracted from Christ or its realiza

tion in history, as nonetheless pre-temporal (προ καταβολής κόσμου,

Eph. 1:4) and, consequently, not to be identified with or made a com

ponent (aspect) of God's temporal, historical action? In other words,

is the distinction between decree and execution really so foreign to

Paul? Is it not to involve Paul in a problematics which, to say the

least, is entirely alien to him, when the apostle is made to oppose the

idea of a decree in the interests of preserving "the freedom of God's

grace and the religious and ethical character of the encounter of man

with his creator in the gospel"?40 Does not the notion that "the pre

destinarían 'in Christ' and the redemptive-historical 'in Christ' determine each other reciprocally",*1 employ the idea of (redemptive) history in a way that is totally un-Pauline and which therefore casts a shadow upon Ridderbos' entire conception of heilsgeschiedenis?42

Certainly, for Paul, the former determines the latter; but does not seeing the reverse as likewise true dissolve in irreparable confusion the, to be sure, doxological but nonetheless careful construction of thought in Romans 8:29 f. and Ephesians 1:3-14? When it is said

39 " . . . er is niets dat de paulinische heilsleer meer weerspreekt, dan wanneer de mens krachtens eigen wilsbeschikking Gods maaksel en nieuwe schepping zou worden" (p. 394). "Zo ver is het er vandaan, dat Paulus in de verhouding van verkiezing en prediking zijn uitgangspunt zou nemen in de individuele menselijke vrijheid" (p. 392).

40 "Veeleer moeten wij constateren, dat hij tegenover zulk een deterministische opvatting de vrijheid van Gods genade en het religieus en ethisch karakter van de ontmoeting van de mens met zijn Schepper in het evangelie handhaaft, Rom. 9:19 e.v." (p. 393).

41 ". . . het praedestinatiaanse en het heilshistorische 'in Christus' bepalen elkaar wederkerig" [my italics] (p. 392).

42 Is it entirely unwarranted to find here the influence of Barth's idea of Geschichte?


that in his electing call God places himself in "a relationship of dependence" ("een verhouding van afhankelijkheid", p. 393) to the one called, is not then the sovereignty of divine grace qualified in an un-Pauline manner, no matter how emphatically Ridderbos maintains the contrary? Although it may be true that the teaching of Romans 9 concerning election and reprobation is set in a redemptive-historical context, does not a careful exegesis of this passage (verses 6 if.) disclose that a concern with individual destinies is also present and is indeed basic to Paul's whole argument?43 I t goes without saying that further careful discussion of these points is imperative.

The last chapter (XII) deals with Paul's teaching concerning the future. As the title, "The Future of the Lord" ("De Toekomst des Heren") reflects, the christological, redemptive-historical interest is again found to be prominent. Paul's approach to the future is determined by what has already happened in Christ, both in its full reality and in its provisional nature (p. 544). The specific character of the fulfillment in Christ is such that present and future are joined in an "inseparable and reciprocal union" ("onafscheidelijke en wederzijdse verbinding", p. 551). I t is this perspective which underlies all of Paul's statements about the future. I t is this bond, for instance, and not a conviction regarding a fixed time period, which is reflected in his teaching concerning the "nearness" of the Parousia. "In the 'at hand' it is a question in the final analysis not of the length of the interim but of the inseparability of the future from the perfect".44

The fulfillment already experienced does not diminish interest in the future. Rather it is precisely the eschatological character of Paul's present situation which gives such actuality and urgency to his teaching concerning the future.

43 Cf. John Murray, Romans, II (Grand Rapids, 1965), 15-24. J. Douma (Algemene genade, Goes, 1966, pp. 289 ff.) gives a brief but excellent criticism of Ridderbos' position (as set forth in the Romans commentary; see above, note 33). Developing the conclusion that Paul's interest in Romans 9-11 is individual as well as redemptive-historical, he defends the Canons of Dordt (I, 7, 15) on four points which he feels are perhaps implicitly rejected (p. 295) in Ridderbos' exegesis: Salvation, resp. destruction, is (1) individual, (2) eternal, (3) rests upon God's predestination (election, resp. reprobation) which is eternal; (4) one may speak of a numerus clausus.

44 "Het gaat in het 'nabij' ten diepste niet om het belang van de lengte van de tussentijd, maar om de onafscheidelijkheid van het futurum van het perfectum" (p. 554).


In this chapter as elsewhere the reader is treated to a wealth of material on a variety of topics. Of particular interest in terms of the purpose of this review is the author's discussion of what happens to believers who die before the Parousia, the problem of the "Interim-state" ("Tussentoestand"). It is fair, I believe, to speak here of conclusions which are the outcome of his interpretation of Paul's anthropology in conjunction with his basic christological, redemptive-historical approach.

It cannot be doubted, in view of statements like Philippians 1:21 and II Corinthians 5:8, that Paul taught that believers are with Christ immediately after death (p. 568). But this matter is not one to which Paul devoted "special and deliberate attention" ("afzonder-lijke en opzettelijke aandacht", p. 565). Concern with it is subordinate to, and an element in, his teaching on the resurrection, apart from which believers have no hope. The interim-state is not explained in terms of anthropology.45 "Without doubt there is lacking here every appeal to an immortality, which is inherent in man or in something in man". "Nowhere in this connection is the soul spoken of as the subject of survival after death".46 Rather the dominating point of view is christological. "It is on the basis of this all-encompassing point of view that believers belong to Christ, have fellowship with him and are included in him, that we must also understand their being-with-Christ both immediately after death as well as after the resurrection".47 Beyond observing this, the situation of the believer between death and resurrection is for us "an incomprehensible mode of human existence".48 That the view of this "incomprehensible mode" expressed here is somewhat different from the usual Reformed understanding few will care to deny.

4* "Anthropologisch wordt het niet geëxpliceerd..." (p. 566). 46 "Ontgetwijfeld ontbreekt hierbij ieder beroep op een onsterfelijkheid,

die aan de mens of aan iets in de mens eigen zou zijn" (p. 566). "Nergens wordt in dit verband van de ziel gesproken als subject van voortbestaan na het sterven . . . " (p. 567).

4? "Het grote gezichtspunt is 00k hier het Christologische" (p. 566). "Het is uit dit alles-omvattend gezichtspunt van het toebehoren van de gelovigen tot Christus, hun gemeenschap met Hem, hun begrepen zijn in Hem, dat wij 00k het met-Christus-zijn van de gelovigen, zowel terstond na hun dood, Phil. 1:23, als na de opstanding, I Thess. 4:17; 5:10, moeten verstaan" (p. 566).

48 " . . . een voor ons onvoorstelbare wijze van menselijk bestaan" (p. 567).


In concluding our survey note may be taken of the fact that in dis

cussing the Antichrist, Ridderbos takes decided exception to the

position adopted by Professors Berkouwer49 and Schippers.50 The

latter react to treating the New Testament's statements about the

future like a newspaper report ("reportage-eschatologie") and are in

terested in giving this material "relevance" ("actualiteit") for the

present. Consequently, they are inclined to deny that the Antichrist,

in particular, is a distinct person and that the apocalyptic material of

the New Testament, in general, describes specific temporal occur

rences. The purpose of this material is rather "to illustrate the per

manent eschatological character of history".«1 Ridderbos not only

maintains that the Antichrist is a distinct person (although, like

Adam and Christ, he is a corporate figure, p. 577) but goes on to argue

that it belongs to the essence of the New Testament apocalyptic pas

sages "to indicate the junctures of specific events in God's consum

mating work in history". His concluding statement in this matter is

eminently worth repeating. "Theological exegesis of these apocalypses

will not be able to overlook this, if it does not wish, in place of falling

upon the Scylla of a 'reportage-eschatology', to suffer shipwreck on

the Charybdis of a 'de-apocalypticizing', in which the coming of the

eschaton is detached from the progress of history".52

In view of so ambitious an undertaking as Paulus represents, it is

not surprising to discover certain omissions. It might seem ungrateful,

after all that Ridderbos has given us, to call attention to this. Never

theless several omissions are striking and should be mentioned. In

his investigation of the nature and contents of Paul's preaching, Rid-

49 G. C. Berkouwer, De wederkomst van Christus (Kampen, 1963), Π, 37 ff. 5 0 R. Schippers, Mythologie en eschatologie in 2 Thessalonicensen 2:1-17

(Kampen, 1961). 51 Ibid., p. 14: " . . . het permanent eschatologisch karakter van de

geschiedenis belichten..." (quoted by Ridderbos, pp. 578 f.). A reply by Schippers on these and related points is given in Gereformeerd Weekblad, Vol. 21, no. 51 (June 17, 1966), p. 370, and Vol. 21, no. 52 (June 24, 1966), pp. 377 f.

52 "Het behoort juist mede tot het wezen van de nieuwtestamentische apokalypsen, dat zij de geledingen aanwijzen in het voleindigende werk Gods in de geschiedenis. De theologische exégèse van deze apokalypsen zal daaraan dan ook niet kunnen voorbij gaan, wil zij niet, in plaats van op de Scylla ener 'reportage-eschatologie' te vervallen, schipbreuk lijden op de Charybdis van een 'entapokalyptisering', waarin de komst van het eschaton is losgemaakt van de voortgang der geschiedenis" (p. 579).


derbos confines himself to the thirteen canonical letters of Paul as

sources (p. 39). The relevant material in Acts is passed over without

even a word of explanation. This omission is all the more perplexing

because one can only feel that a consideration of Paul's sermons re

corded in Acts strengthens the impression that his fundamental out

look is heilshistorisch. Again, one misses any reference to Paul's view

of Scripture or a discussion of his use of the Old Testament. Perhaps

Professor Ridderbos would refer us at this point to his Heils geschiedenis

en Heilige Schrift (Eng. trans., The Authority of the New Testament

Scriptures). This omission from the volume under review, however,

leaves the over-all presentation in a certain sense incomplete. Paul's

profound and penetrating grasp of God's redemptive activity and his

rich development of this understanding are inexplicable apart from

his conviction that πάσα y ραφή is Θώπνευστο* (II Tim. 3:16).

One wishes that Ridderbos had explored this point and wonders, if he

had done so, whether it would not have been necessary for him to be

more precise than he is, when he talks about "the Old Testamental

and Semitic character of Paul's world of thought".5 3 "Old Testament-

Semitic" is in certain respects a legitimate common denominator, but

it hardly represents a homogenous scheme of conceptions, as Rid

derbos' own comparison of the Kingdom-expectation in the Old Testa

ment with that of later Judaism makes clear.«4

* * * * *

Against the background of this survey which will have succeeded

only imperfectly in giving an indication of the true proportions of

Paulus, I want now to try to make some assessment of its over-all

significance and to give further indication why it seems certain to have

great influence. Attention, for the most part, will be given to the

identification rather than the solution of questions and problem areas.

1) Paulus — as its subtitle, "Outline of His Theology", suggests —

confronts Reformed dogmatics in a massive and unprecedented way

with the challenge of biblical theology or, to be more exact, New

Testament biblical theology. This admittedly blanket statement

53 " . . . het oudtestamentisch en semietisch karakter van Paulus' voor-stellings- en denkwereld . . . " (p. 34).

54 Η. Ν. Ridderbos, De komst van het koninkrijk, pp. 24 ff.; 29 ff. (Eng. trans., pp. 3 ff,; 8 ff.).


needs to be justified and explained. For we no longer tend to think

of problems as existing in this area. Orthodox theology has long since

outgrown its antipathy to the expression "biblical theology". The

harmony between biblical theology and systematic theology has been

demonstrated repeatedly and convincingly.ss In what follows it is not

at all my interest to call this into question but to explore further cer

tain aspects of this relationship as prompted by Paulus.

We may take our point of departure with Abraham Kuyper and

his rejection of the expression "biblical theology". I t may be thought

that Kuyper's objections were primarily historical in character, based

on reaction to rationalistic theology which masqueraded its thinly

veiled attacks on the authority of Scripture under this slogan. This

factor plays a part, but his rejection has a much deeper basis. I t is

bound up with the nature of Scripture as the principium theologiae.

Scripture itself is not theology but underlies it.56 One must not think

of the biblical authors as theologians.57 Theology is unthinkable un

less there first be dogmas, and dogma is a product of the life of the

church.58 Further, in this respect, a sharp distinction is drawn be

tween Scripture, on the one hand, and dogma and church, on the

other. The Bible itself contains no dogmas but rather contains the

"material" out of which the church "constructs" dogma.59 In terms

ss Cf., e. g., Β. Β. Warfield, "The Idea of Systematic Theology", Studies in Theology (New York, 1932), pp. 63 ff.; John Murray, "Systematic Theology", The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. 26 (Nov., 1963), pp. 33 ff.; Edmund P. Clowney, Preaching and Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, 1961), p. 16.

56 Abraham Kuyper, Encyclopaedie der heilige godgeleerdheid, III (Kampen, 1909), 167: "Is de Heilige Schrift het principium Theologiae, dan begint de Theologie eerst, als de Heilige Schrift er is".

57 Ibid., p. 176. 5 8 Ibid., p. 169: "Er is geen Dogmatiek denkbaar, tenzij zieh vooraf het

dogma gevormd hebbe, en het dogma is als zoodanig een vrucht van levensproces der kerk".

59 " in de Heilige Schrift zijn geen dogmata, maar is alleen de stof gegeven, waaruit de Kerk, onder de leiding des Heiligen Geestes, de dogmata te construeeren heeft" (ibid.). Cf. pp. 355 ff., 404, 411. Highly questionable, in this regard, are Kuyper's sweeping generalizations that the biblical revelation is given in the "stylized, symbolic-aesthetic language of the East" and that it is only when the "Western mind" goes to work on it that theology originates. "De Openbaring is ons in de Heilige Schrift gegeven, ingewikkeld in de symbolisch-aesthetische kunsttaal van het Oosten. Uit die oostersche wereld wordt nu haar inhoud overgedragen in dat westersch bewustzijn, dat het algemeen menschelijk bewustzijn tot


of this sequence of priorities — Scripture, Church, dogma, dogmatics (theology)60 — Kuyper rejects biblical theology not only in name but in concept. He then goes on to approve the material interest of biblical theology in its concern with the historical character of the Bible, laments the shortcomings of the loca probanda method of dogmatics in this respect, and looks for real progress in biblical understanding to result from a consideration of the historia revefationis.61

It must be questioned, however, whether the work which has been done since the time of Kuyper and which he himself welcomed, permits his rejection of the notion of biblical theology to stand. For the study of the history of special revelation has made it increasingly clear that the concept of revelation is itself a differentiated one. Revelation comes as acts or as words. Moreover, this same study has disclosed how these two facets are related. Revelation (verbal) is always concerned either explicitly or implicitly with redemptive accomplishment. God's speech is always related to his actions. It is not going too far to say that redemption is the raison d'être of revelation.62 An unbiblical, one could say, almost gnostic notion of revelation inevitably results, when one considers it of and by itself or as providing general truths self-evident in and of themselves.63 This means, then, that the character of revelation is such that it is either authentication and description or explanation and interpretation of God's redemptive action. Usually both aspects are found in a given biblical writer or instrument of revelation.

There can be no doubt which of these is most characteristic of the writings and preaching of the apostle Paul. It is the latter. His almost

dialectische klaarheid poogt te brengen; en eerst waar deze overgang plaats heeft, onstaat de Theologie" (p. 168). Apart from the fact that here Paul's contact with Greek culture is entirely overlooked, it can hardly be said that his letters, even if they are not theological treatises, are lacking in "dialectical clarity".

60 Just how determinative and clearly defined this pattern of distinctions is for Kuyper's thinking appears from the fact that it furnishes the designations for three of the four major subdivisions of special encyclopaedia: De Bibliologische, De Ecclesiologische and De Dogmatologische (which includes dogmatics).

61 Kuyper, op. cit., Vol. Ill, pp. 170 ff. 62 Among the best discussions of this point is still Gerhardus Vos,

Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, 1959), pp. 14 f., 24, 124, 324 ff. 63 Cf. Vos, op. cit., p. 24: "Revelation is so interwoven with redemption

that, unless allowed to consider the latter, it would be suspended in the air".


exclusive concern is in expounding, explicating, interpreting, "exeget-

ing" the history of redemption as it has reached its climax in the death

and resurrection of Christ. Only when this fact is grasped along with

certain important ramifications, will the real significance of Paul in

the history of revelation become apparent.

Paul's function in the economy of revelation cannot be abstracted

or divorced from his office and functioning as απόστολος. This is

simply to say that his activity as an instrument of revelation is quali

fied ecclesiastically. This, in turn, means that the inspired, infallible

revelation which he gives is at the same time the authoritative opinion

of the church ( = dogma), and that, as the various dogmas which he

gives display obvious relationships to each other, one may come to

speak of the structure of Paul's thinking or even of his theology. The

same line of considerations applies, mutatis mutandis, to the remaining

epistolary material in the New Testament. Thus in a manner, subject

to careful distinction, it may be said that the New Testament is the

product of the church. In a certain respect, it is proper to say that

the principium theologiae, Scripture, is itself theology or, perhaps

better, that the nature of the continuity between our theology and its

principium (the Bible) is at points distinctly theological. Kuyper's

sequence is at least subject to supplementation. Recognition of the

discontinuity between the New Testament writings and the products

of the later church must always be balanced by a recognition of the

(ecclesiastical-theological) continuity between them.

This may be put another way by observing that from the perspective

of the history of redemption — a perspective which for the believer

there can be none more basic — we today are in the same situation

as was Paul.64 Together with him we look back upon the climactic

events of Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension and together

with him we "wait for His Son from heaven" (I Thess. 1:10), the one

event in that history which is yet outstanding. It is the same tension

between "already" and "not yet" which marked Paul's experience

that characterizes our own. This means, then, that whatever its scope

may be and whatever shape it should take, if it is to be worthy of its

name, our theology can have no more basic and distinguishing interest

than, with Paul and in his footsteps, to expound and elucidate the

nature and implications of this tension and its resolution, to explain

6* Cf. Vos, op. cit., pp. 325 f.: "Still we know full well that we ourselves live just as much in the N.T. as did Peter and Paul and John".


and interpret "the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, but now is manifested,. . ." (Rom. 16:25 f.).

My concern has been to indicate the validity of Ridderbos' approach to Paul as a theologian and his speaking of Paul's theology. Kuyper has been introduced into the discussion because I feel the influence of his conception of dogmatics lingers and inhibits a fully biblical approach to Paul and the other New Testament authors. Most frequently, at least in evangelical circles, when one speaks of biblical theology he has in view a survey of the progression of the redemptive-revelatory activity of God in history, which the student of Scripture carries out from a basically (i. e., redemptive-historically) different situation. This, most properly, is a description of Old Testament biblical theology. Although the element of concern with the progress of revelation is not lacking in New Testament biblical theology» the latter is more properly characterized by the fact that, in the manner noted above, the student comes to see himself, despite all cultural and temporal differences, as standing in principle (i. e., in terms of the history of redemption) in the same situation as the writers of the New Testament and, therefore, as involved with the majority of them in a common interpretative enterprise.6* This is preeminently the case with the apostle Paul, because of the particular function and prominence that his writings have in the New Testament.

This is not the place to expand on these points or to discuss the program of New Testament biblical theology in detail.66 In a time,

6s One may not read out of this statement any qualification or a rela-tivizing of the perfections of Scripture (necessity, authority, clarity, sufficiency!). An analogy from differential calculus may help to make this clear. Redemptive events constitute the function (f), the authentication and interpretation of the New Testament its first derivative (f) and the interpretation of the later church its second derivative (f"). f, to be sure, is of a different order than f": the former (in its derivative character), as infallible verbal revelation (Scripture) which has God as its auctor Primarius, is the basis (principium!) of the latter. But both, as derivatives, have a common interpretative reference to f. Indeed, it may be said that at its level (characterized by fallibility and tentativeness) f" "goes beyond" f in that it draws out the implications of, and seeks to make more explicit, the structure implicit in the latter. Also, in the above statements the redemptive-historical distinction between the apostolic and post-apostolic periods is not being overlooked or obliterated. Rather the stress is on some of the implications of the fact that in "church", "apostolic" and "post-apostolic" have their common denominator.

66 The difference in program between Old Testament biblical theology


however, when the idea of theology itself is a matter of such intense debate in Reformed circles it does seem important to observe at least the following: Paulus makes such a valuable contribution because Ridderbos treats the apostle as a theologian. Those who praise the contents so highly but are unhappy with talk about Paul's theology must recognize this.6? In this connection it may be helpful, if not essential, for readers of the Journal to be reminded that Geerhardus Vos approached Paul in the same way. The Pauline Eschatology has abiding worth and timeliness because Vos saw himself, in continuity with Paul, as following in the footsteps of him who "may justly be called the father of Christian eschatology",68 because he considered Paul's "the genius of the greatest constructive mind ever at work on the data of Christianity",69 because he thought in terms of "the Apostle's theological system".?°

Mention was made above of the challenge to Reformed dogmatics

and New Testament biblical theology reflected upon in the preceding paragraph is already intimated by War field when he writes: "In its fundamental teaching, the New Testament lends itself, therefore, more readily to what is called dogmatic than to what is called genetic treatment . . . " ("The Person of Christ", Biblical Doctrines (New York, 1929), p. 176).

6i Most pronounced dissatisfaction in this respect has been expressed in the review of J. Kamphuis, "Op zoek naar het paulinische kernwoord, III," De Reformatie, Vol. 41, no. 41 (July 9, 1966), p. 322, note 9. He feels that to call Paul a theologian is to deal with him at "a level, in which the apostle with his unique authority as apostle comes in principle to stand in one line with every 'theologian* and thinker" ("een niveau, waarop de apostel met zijn uniek gezag als apostel principeel in één rij komt te staan met iedere 'theoloog' en denker"). That it is appropriate, if not necessary, according to Scripture, to think of Paul as a theologian and, therefore, as in a certain sense standing in a line with later theologians and thinkers of the church, has been indicated above. Consequently, it is not evident to me that to view Paul in this manner is necessarily to follow "the false path of immanentistic thinking" ("de doolweg van het immanentisme") or necessarily implies a denial of the unity and divine authorship of Scripture, as Kamphuis goes on to maintain. Here as elsewhere the distortions to which a viewpoint are liable and the viewpoint itself must be distinguished.

68 Vos, The Pauline Eschatology, p. vi. «9 Ibid., p. 149. ?° Ibid., p. 60; cf. "the Apostle's construction of Christian truth"

(p. 148), "the Pauline system of truth" (p. 148), "compact theological structure" (p. 61), and the statements (pp. 11, 28 f.) already introduced above in another connection (note 14).


which Paulus embodies. It was stated then, and it should be repeated now: this need not be seen as a threat on the part of biblical theology either to compete with or replace systematic theology. Rather the challenge is a prod to the latter to do its own work better. I can only indicate briefly here one way in which Paulus seems to me to function in this respect. If Paul has a theology and his letters and preaching disclose a structure of thought, then it follows that the shape our theology takes should reflect that structure as much as possible.71

This applies especially to the locus of soteriology where Pauline material figures so prominently. If, in the common enterprise of theologizing, Paul, as apostle and instrument of revelation, is distinguished from us by the spirated and infallible character of what he writes and says and so provides part of the indispensable formulation, the principium for our own work; it follows that our theology should be concerned not only with the material he provides but also with the way in which he himself treats it. Scripture must determine not only the content but also the method of our theology.72

2) From the foregoing it will have become apparent that an appreciation of Paul's redemptive-historical approach brings with it the recognition that he has with us a common (interpretative) concern. Conversely, treating Paul as a theologian leads one to see that his primary interest is in explicating the history of redemption. The reciprocity which obtains here should not be overlooked. The formal side (Paul as theologian) and the material side (redemptive-historical interest) may never be divorced. Our survey has already given some indication of what Ridderbos feels to be the importance of this heilshistorisch interest for Paul. Now it is important to note the way in which it takes on programmatic dimensions for Ridderbos' presentation.

Ridderbos writes repeatedly and with respect to a variety of matters that Paul's interest is heilshistorisch, not heilsordelijk™ (pp. 6, 61, 188,

71 Cf. Vos, op. cit., p. 44: "Our task consists of ascertaining the perspective of thought in the revealed Gospel delivered by the Apostle". "It is the subtle weaving of these threads of perspective into the doctrinal fabric of thought as a whole that we must endeavor, so far as possible, to unravel".

73 In this connection at least formal approval must be given to the statement of P. Lengsfeld, Adam und Christus (Koinonia: Beiträge zur ökumenischen Spiritualität und Theologie, IX, Essen, 1965), p. 22: "Die Schrift ist auch Kanon für die Arbeit der Dogmatik (nicht bloss für den Inhalt)".

w There is no one-word English equivalent for "heilsordelijk". It is


224, 231). The same point is made implicitly, but nonetheless deliberately, in numerous other places (e.g., pp. 42, 94, 234ff., 242 f., 297, 407 f., 422, 451 f.). To give just one example, the contrast between "old" and "new" man (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22 ff.; Col. 3:9f.) is to be understood primarily not in a heilsordelijk but in a heilshistorisch sense.74 In this distinction between an interest in the historia salutis and an interest in the ordo salutis and in the stress that the former is Paul's almost exclusive concern, the challenge to dogmatics mentioned above and hence the over-all significance of Paulus becomes more explicit. In fact, one can only feel that the distinction,75 heilshistorisch-heilsordelijk, has been coined deliberately, with the exegetical tradition in mind which has given orthodox Protestant soteriology its present shape. Here again reference may be made to Vos.76 This same "challenge" is already implicit in chapter II of The Pauline Eschatology. In discussing there "The Interaction Between Eschatology and Soteriology", he emphasizes that, according to Paul, central soteric realities like justification and regeneration have their basic character and are to be understood as elements in the present realization of the Age-to-come, which has been inaugurated by Christ's resurrection.77 The eschatological, redemptive-historical, christological character of Paul's soteriology is stressed by Ridderbos in an even more pointed and much

the adjective derived from the noun "heilsorde" which, in turn, is a synonym for uordo salutis11.

74 "Doch wij zullen Oude' en 'nieuwe mens' niet in de eerste plaats in heils-ordelijke, maar in heilshistorische zin moeten verstaan; d.w.z.: het gaat hierbij ten principiale niet om een verandering, die zieh in de weg van geloof en bekering in het leven van de individuele Christen voltrekt, maar om hetgeen eenmaal in Christus plaats vond en waaraan de zijnen in de boven-omschreven corporatieve zin in Hem deel hadden" (pp. 61 f.).

7* It does not occur in his earlier writings, at least with any frequency or stress. Cf., however, When the Time Had Fully Come, pp. 48, 49.

76 By this time the reader has perhaps recognized that the affinities between Vos and Ridderbos are more than random. In this connection it is both interesting and significant to note that Dr. Stonehouse structured his remarks in review of De komst van het koninkrijk (The Westminster Theological Journal, Vol. XIV (1951-52), pp. 159 ff.) about a comparison with Vos' study on the kingdom (The Teaching of Jesus Concerning the Kingdom of God and the Church, 1903).

77 Cf. Vos, op. cit., p. 60, where he says with respect to Paul's statements about the work of the Spirit, that "they prove that in a very large aspect, second to none in its importance for the Pauline system of thought, the eschatological appears as predeterminative for both the substance and the form of the soteriological".


more fully developed fashion. Even with respect to the subjective renewal of the individual believer Paul's approach is "not of anthropological, but of redemptive-historical, eschatological, that is to say, of a christological and pneumatological character". "The result is that there is not to be found in Paul's preaching anything like an heilsordelijk systematics, a developed teaching with respect to the anthropological application of salvation. The reason for this is not only that the character of Paul's teaching is not 'systematic' in the scientific sense of the word, but above all, because his point of view is different".78 When Paul talks about believers being raised with Christ (Eph. 2:4 ff.), he is thinking "Christologisch-heilshistorisch" and not "anthropologisch-heilsordelijk" (p. 231).

These are strong statements; and some of the conclusions which in Ridderbos' mind they entail are no less startling. For instance, with respect to the subjective renewal of the individual believer, he writes, "The new creation in Christ is communicated in baptism through faith [my italics], the new aeon becomes personal regeneration and new life".79 An idiom that relates faith in an instrumental fashion to regeneration is not, to say the least, what one has come to expect from a Reformed theologian. Still it would be unwarranted to find in this statement and the context in which it stands a flat repudiation of the classic Reformed position on regeneration. For as Ridderbos himself would no doubt be quick to point out: his is a different perspective (heilshistorisch, not heilsordelijk) !

At this juncture, however, a problem arises. In the opinion of the reviewer, there can be little doubt that Paul's primary interest is in

78 ". . . niet van anthropologische, maar van heilshistorisch-eschatolo-gische, dat wil ook zeggen van christologische en pneumatologische aard i s . . . . Het gevolg is, dat er in Paulus' prediking niet zo iets te vinden is als een heils-ordelijke systematiek, een uitgewerkte leer van de anthropologische toepassing van het heil. De oorzaak hiervan is niet alleen, dat het karakter van Paulus* leer niet 'systematisch' is in de wetenschap-pelijke zin van het woord, maar vooral, dat zijn gezichtspunt een ander is" (p. 224).

79 "De nieuwe schepping in Christus deelt zieh mede in de doop door het geloof, de nieuwe aeon wordt tot persoonlijke wedergeboorte en nieuw leven, Tit. 3:5" (p. 233). It is perhaps worth noting that it is clear from the context that "regeneration" is being used here to include the inception of new life. Cf. p. 256: "Men kann niet anders concluderen, dan dat het geloof de weg en de wijze is, waarop het met Christus gestorven en opgestaan zijn, het leven door de Geest, het aandoen van de nieuwe mens, het vernieuwd worden naar het beeld van Christus, de wedergeboorte, kortom de nieuwe schepping Gods zieh realiseert en individualiseert".


the history of redemption. No small degree of the importance of Paulus resides in the fact that it has demonstrated this in such a massive and convincing fashion. Also, there can be little question that the traditional Reformed theology has not been sufficiently aware of the apostle's redemptive-historical interest and that its ordo salutis, which in large part is based on Pauline materials, is probably in need of reassessment, perhaps even correction. One could only wish, however, that Ridderbos had gone into more detail with respect to the problem-area which comes into view here. Frequently, he leaves the impression that Paul is not interested in the issues respecting the individual's appropriation of salvation. On the other hand, he does recognize Paul's concern with "the great eschatological ordo salutis11

("de grote eschatologische heilsorde", p. 217). But how this ordo functions in the experience of the individual believer is not developed adequately. In this connection Ridderbos would no doubt feel that stress belongs on the idea, bound up so closely with Christ as the Second Adam, of "corporate personality". "The corporate idea of the all-in-One, derived from the significance of Adam, works itself out in all sorts of ways in the Pauline explanation of the redemptive events made manifest in Christ. I t teaches us to understand the redemptive-historical character not only of that which has once occurred in Christ, but also of the way in which those who belong to Christ participate initially and permanently in the salvation wrought by Christ".80

Such a statement, however, no matter how true it may be, is in need of a great deal more expansion and clarification. The term "corporate personality" has come to enjoy wide currency in biblical studies during the past three decades and precisely for this reason is of ever diminishing value. Frequently it is employed in a way which obscures rather than clarifies problems. More particularly, with respect to Ridderbos' usage here and elsewhere (it occurs repeatedly), it is not clear just how the way in which he understands it differs from the conceptions of (covenantal) solidarity (Adam — mankind, Christ — the elect) which are so important in Reformed theology.81

80 "De aan de betekenis van Adam ontleende corporatieve gedachte van het allen-in-Eén — zo mögen wij concluderen — werkt zieh op allerlei wijze uit in de paulinische explicatie van het in Christus versehenen heilsgebeuren. Zij leert ons niet alteen het heilshistorische karakter verstaan van hetgeen eenmaal in Christus is geschied, maar 00k van de wijze waarop degenen, die tot Christus behoren, eenmaal en bij de voortduur in het in Christus gewrochte heil participer en11 (p. 63).

81 Cf. p. 60, where he seems to indicate that the notion of corporate


The distinction: heilshistorisch-heilsordelijk is a valid one. It makes a necessary and highly valuable contribution to the methodical study of Paul. Care must be taken, however, that what happens in the discussion of the teaching on election does not repeat itself here. Viewpoints which are complementary must not be opposed in a mutually exclusive fashion. The full scope of Paul's interests may never be obscured or reduced. Even at midnight in a jail cell shattered by earthquake he had a ready answer to the question around which all concern with the ordo salutis revolves (Acts 16:30 f.). Reaction to a perhaps excessive preoccupation with the apostles in terms of ordo salutis may never be allowed to eclipse the fact that the heilsordelijk factor has a legitimate and essential place in his heilshistorisch outlook. It should be underscored, however, that an approach to the questions of the ordo salutis in terms of Paul's eschatological perspective opens up a vast, important, and extremely promising area of study. And here there is much to be learned from a careful study of Paulus.

* * * * *

An end to these remarks must be drawn somewhere. For they could be continued indefinitely. In closing, the reader is, reminded that the focus of this review has been primarily on controversial aspects. Therefore, I have probably not succeeded fully in the desire to avoid giving a distorted impression of the book as a whole. Our appreciation of this work should be stated again forcefully. This is a volume of breath-taking scope and unprecedented insight into the teaching of the apostle Paul. It would be difficult to give adequate expression of appreciation to Professor Ridderbos for this work. No doubt, however, he will take greatest satisfaction in the thorough study and discussion which Paulus must and will receive in all quarters of the Reformed community, out of which it has come and upon which it seems destined to make a decisive and enduring impact. To this end nothing is so much to be desired as the earliest possible appearance of a competent English translation.

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

personality brings one beyond and dissolves as unbiblical the problematics of the "realistic-federal" debate. "Waarop deze eenheid [Adam-mankind] berust, of zij bijv. als een 'realistische' of als een 'foederatieve' beschouwd zou moeten worden, wordt niet nader in het licht gesteld".

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.

Date post:	12-May-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	theoarticles
View:	221 times
Download:	1 times

Gaffin, Paul an Theologian

Documents