# Lehre und Wehre_St. Louis Missouri_Juni 1864_S165
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

The Modern Theory of the Various Doctrinal Types of the New Testament. 165

hand, that a detailed refutation of it would be entirely superfluous, and a
few brief hints will suffice.

As for the supposed contradiction that is said to exist between the
teaching of Christ (as it appears in the synoptic Gospels, and especially
in the discourses of Jesus contained in them) and the teaching of the
apostles, this is a claim plucked purely out of thin air. The linking of the
appearance of Christ to the economy of the Old Testament, the proving of
the Messiahship of Jesus from prophetic predictions, is found not only in
the Synoptics but equally also in the other writings of the New Testament —
for example, John 2:17; 4:22 (salvation comes from the Jews); 5:46; 6:45;
7:38; 8:56; 18:9; 19:24, 36, 37, etc.; Acts 13:33–37, 47; 15:15–18; 18:28,
etc.; Romans 1:2, 4 (Abraham the father of believers); 9:25–33, etc.;
Galatians 4:21ff., etc., etc. And as for, on the other hand, the doctrine of
the eternal Godhead of Christ and His pre-worldly, essential union with the
Father, unmistakable, strong intimations of this are found also in the
Synoptics, and precisely in the discourses of Jesus — compare Matthew 1:18ff.
(the birth of Christ from the Holy Ghost); 3:17; 11:27; 28:18; 18:20 (the
omnipresence of Christ), etc. So in both respects there is found no
contradiction whatsoever, but rather the best agreement. The only true
thing in the matter is this: that what occurs, concerning the person of
the Redeemer, more rarely and more by way of intimation in the Synoptics,
is stated more frequently and more explicitly in John and in the apostolic
epistles — in which, however, no unbiased person of sound common sense
will find a contradiction, but only a different intention according to the
difference of the readers for whom these parts of Scripture were first
intended, and a progress, a further development of divine revelation, which
has its necessary grounding in the progressive development of the divine
economy of salvation, and which is sufficiently explained by sayings of the
Lord such as John 14:20, 26; 15:26, and especially John 16:12–15. This same
superficiality and arbitrariness also shows itself in the assertion of
mutually contradictory doctrinal types among the apostles themselves. If,
for example, it is asserted that John's doctrine of the Logos (belonging to
the Alexandrian-Johannine doctrinal type) had its origin in that of the
Jewish theosophist Philo (d. 39 A.D.), this finds its refutation simply in
the fact that Philo's Logos is not an independent person existing alongside
the Father, as in John, but only an impersonal self-revelation of God, and
Philo knows nothing of an incarnation of this Logos — so that precisely on
the essential main points the idea of the Jewish theosophist and the
teaching of the evangelist are entirely different from one another. — Or if
a distinction is drawn between the Pauline doctrinal type and the
Palestinian, to the effect that according to the former Christianity has a
universal-historical significance, is a world religion, while according to
the latter Christ was really meant to be only the Savior of the Jews,
passages in the Syn-