By Professor Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky
Apostolic Christology gains a complete foundation in theoretical development and practical applicability, but this advantage conceals a decisive self-condemnation of a fatal nature. Its entire originality lies in its distance from early Christian speculations and its development independent of them. While we agree that the final result is a superior theory, it inevitably follows that the Apostle is deprived of the support and justification of tradition, which is the only valuable asset when describing genuine facts. Then it turns out that the evangelist replaces objective reality with subjective conjecture, and commits a forgery, albeit an unwitting and unintentional one. It is equally necessary that the novel concept be alien to the subject being grasped and not arise from a profound understanding of it, thus proving merely an illegitimate adaptation of resources drawn from another sphere of Hellenic rational ingenuity.
For all these reasons, it is certain that such interpretations will be eliminated and fall away of their own accord once it is established that no such break with tradition occurred, and that St. Paul, possessing factual evidence, did not turn to extraneous sources. Let us examine this issue in all its relevant aspects.
First of all, it must be remembered that no secondary influence has yet been discovered in the formation of apostolic doctrine. For the Book of Wisdom of Solomon, this thesis is indisputable because it does not contain strictly personal predicates from which the doctrine of the pre-worldly individuality of the eternal Christ could have genetically grown. They also attempt to avoid this predicament, even agreeing that the non-canonical document portrays a “simple personification,” since, being parallel to the word, sophia supposedly enters into a close relationship with the Christian Logos when it is presented as the internally creative force of the righteous race.157
This hypothesis leans entirely in the opposite direction and seeks to dispel the very notion of a pre-eternal personality, whereas we are discussing the emergence of this concept as universally recognized by the Apostle of the Gentiles. The latter frees himself from external transformative adjectives, and without them there would be no motive whatsoever for deviating from the traditional flow of Christological contemplation. Therefore, the originalities he claims to possess are also questionable. Their essence—according to critical conjecture—was that the members of the primordial Christian union recognized only the momentary, ecstatic influences of the Messiah and did not perceive in him the constant, regulating energy of each believer: St. Paul thought the opposite, venerating Christ as the immanent factor in a regenerated life, undisturbed by extraordinary manifestations. The contrast in this formulation is very sharp,[158] and would certainly require external pressure to shift Christian thought from its previous path. But it is easy to see that both these positions, in all their parts, have been edited with a tendentious extreme, contrary to genuine objectivity. For the early Christian brotherhood, historical accounts implicitly state that the outpouring of the Spirit was abundant here, unprecedented, and not subsequently repeated to such a degree in the Pauline communities. If this is a fact, then any theories are superfluous, since everything boils down to the impartial observation that the previously prevailing tension ceased in its high intensity. The entire task, then, will be to explain this documented phenomenon, and its enigma is sufficiently illuminated by the course of events itself. The early Christian era was the time of the Church’s founding, endowed with all the resources for its future, when it was to develop from the already existing resources, which were initially entrusted to it in all their uniqueness and incapacity for the prevailing order. Here, both the accumulation of all life-giving spiritual energy and its extraordinary manifestation are equally natural. This was the time of planting Christian seeds in the cosmic soil, wherein the full force of future development was contained, and hence growth proceeded rapidly. In this case, the relaxation of extreme tension simply indicates that the process has entered its course and does not require extraordinary resources, being fully assured of corresponding prosperity. From this perspective, the distinction of the evangelist is not at all subjective and is motivated by the differences in the very moments described. It would be a different matter if it were said that this change rests on the disappearance of a functioning factor, which dies of its own accord or is suppressed by another. Of course, in this case, both Christological dogmas would be disparate, regardless of their objective strength and even if they were equally false. But for this to happen, it was necessary that the earlier confession be made that the power in question could only manifest itself miraculously and in the realm of the miraculous, not allowing for more tranquil activity, while the later conviction was diametrically opposed and stated that the only means were supposedly ordinary, vital dispatches. Again, it is irrefutable that this is not at all in the documentary data.
In them, we read that extraordinary events were strictly timed to coincide with the most important stages of apostolic history, such as the opening of Christ’s Church on the day of Pentecost and the consecration of the mission among the pagans at the baptism of the centurion Cornelius. Along with this, all such events were associated with the exceptional personalities of the founders of the ecclesiastical organism itself, which was then destined to grow and strengthen. But the early Christian era was by no means limited to these phenomena or such luminaries. Under the few apostles, we see a whole host of ordinary confessors of the Crucified One, who made no claims to supernatural gifts. It is not surprising that their lives, too, were not steeped in ecstasy, although they never ceased to be truly Christian. Their quality is characterized by the fact that they were faithful to their principle in every aspect, and in them, everything external precisely corresponded to their inner idea. Therefore, united in the Lord, the early Christians dwelt together and had all things in common (Acts 2:44 ff.). Moreover, external order was not a simple appendage, independent of internal rebirth, but was called upon and governed by the latter, since community of property rested on the fact that “the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32, 34 ff.). The inseparability of such Christian energy is everywhere affirmed, which, with its vitality, determines human behavior in all its stages and forms. For this reason, deviation in external appearance proves to be an insult to the inner creative principle, hence the fact that Ananias and Sapphira’s concealment of property was not at all considered a simple error 159 and was punished with terrible death as an insult to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1 ff.). Similarly, the fluctuations in the spiritual realm of impartial unity were accompanied by confusion in the area of property, and order required the election of spirit-bearing men (Acts 6:1 ff.) to maintain the spiritual level of all relations—even economic ones.
Considering these observations alone, we see that the primate brotherhood is fully permeated by the grace of Christ, which embraces each and every one and normalizes their entire existence, transforming it according to its own type in all external manifestations. It would hardly be fair to say that Christ’s influence here was and was recognized as merely extraordinary and momentary, since this exhausted the entire order of life. Rather, the very opposite is true: Christ’s spiritualization is conceived as a constant, internal factor. Then another objection is possible: even in this case, the early Christian way of life would be extraordinary, exceeding the bounds of ordinary everyday life. This is partly undeniable, but it is explained quite naturally by the fact that the creative force was extraordinary and therefore molded into adequate forms. Nothing else could be expected from the very dignity of the object. Its entire importance lies in the fact that the latter embraces everything within itself, and outside its sphere, Christian life itself is not permitted.
Notes:
157. Ferd. Chr. Baur, “The Christian Life of the Fathers and the Creator,” I, pp. 57–58. Cf. Prof. Otto Pfleiderer, “Das Urchristentum, seine Schriften and Lehren im geschichtlichen Zusammenhang,” zw. Auflage, I (Berlin 1902), p. 273.
158. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristentum I 2, p. 273 fin. ff. And Professor Wilhelm Bousset declares the Apostle Paul’s view that ordinary Christian life is from the Spirit to be completely original (see “Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen” 1901, X, p. 760); true, in this case “das gesammte Christenleben wird zum Wunderwerk Gottes” (p. 761), but nevertheless here there is such a “fundamental new Auffassung from Wirken des göttlichen Geistes in the ruhenden und gleichmässigen Erscheinungen des Christenlebens” (p. 767), that here there is an “abyss” in comparison with previous concepts (p. 760). This is precisely the innovation of the Hellenic evangelist (Emil Sokolowski, The History of Paulus in Their Beziehungen zu einander, pp. 197, 215), that he is the first to determine the normal Christian course (E. Sokolowski, The History of Paulus, pp. 1: These 3) in all respects (E. Sokolowski in both books mentioned on pp. 40 ff.) by the action of the Spirit of God.
159. It is clear that in the Author of Acts, property relations are not determined by the proximity of the “parousia” – contrary to the contrary assertions of Oskar Holtzmann, Life of Jesus (Tübingen and Leipzig 1901), p. 398.
Source in Russia: Glubokovsky, N.N. The Teaching of the Book of Wisdom of Solomon on Divine Wisdom or Spirit in Comparison with the Apostolic // Christian Reading, 1904, No. 5, pp. 615-659.
