Heilsgeschichte and Atonement
ofj. C. K. von Hofmann
A n Exposition a n d Critique
Ja c k K
^ 7 / lthough Jo h a n n e s C h r i s t i a n K o n r a d von Hofm ann
L J (1810-1877) has frequently been forgotten by twentieth-
y ~ century Lutherans, his significance continues to be felt.1
H ofm anns emphasis on the definitive nature of history for the
theological enterprise finds an echo in the writings of Oscar
Cullmann^ and W olfhart ?annenberg.1 His reinterpretation
of Luthers theology of atonem ent as prim arily centering on
the conquest of demonic forces set the scholarly trajectory for
G ustaf Auln and several other tw ^ L e th -c e n tu ry Luther in-
terpretersd Lastly, in his atonem ent theology, H ofm ann greatly
influenced both Auln that is, in his treatm ent of the subject
in his dogmatics and the A m erican Lutheran theologian
Gerhard Forde.6
In the following essay our goal will be to give an explanation
of key themes in H ofm anns theology. Beginning with briefly
describing H ofm anns early life and influences, we will then
move on and give an exposition of the two most im portant as-
pects of his theology: his doctrines of Heilsgeschichte (salvation
history) and atonement. Finally, we will end our discussion by
briefly critiquing H ofm anns theology, in short, H ofm anns ap-
proach is ultimately unsatisfactory because it fails to take key
themes of historic Lutheran confessional theology seriously. Lo
m any these failures can be prim arily traced back to H ofm anns
Heilsgeschichte theology and its related $ c h l^ rm a c h e ria n -P i-
etist fixation on religious experience as a determ inative crite-
rion for the establishment of C hristian doctrine. Although such
criticisms are not w ithout merit, we will argue that, at a deeper
level, these problems are rooted in H ofm anns rejection of the
orthodox Lutheran understanding of the full com m unication
ofthe divine attributes w ithin the hypostatic union (genus ma-
jestaticum) and its related doctrine of the omnipresence o fthe
risen Christ. Therefore his distortion ofth e distinction between
law and gospel, and his rejection ofthe orthodox Lutheran doc-
trine of atonement, both follow from this faulty Christology.
H G FM ANNS EARLY LIFE A N D INFLUENGES
H o f m a n n was born in 1810 in a lower-middle-class home in
N rnberg to Lorenz H ofm ann and his fourth wife, Eva Dorth-
ea Buchner H ofm ann. Early in his life, H ofm anns father died
is adjunct professor of theology at A quinas College
Jack K ilc re a s e
in G rand Rapids, M ichigan, and the Institute o f L utheran Theology at
Brookings, South Dakota.
il c r e a s e
and his m other was foreed to take over the family business.
In spite of the grueling hours that she worked m aintaining
the family business and caring for H ofm ann and his num er-
ous siblings, his m other found time to be heavily involved in a
Lutheran ?ietist movement em anating from W ittenberg. $he
1. See d is c u s s io n o f H o f m a n n s th e o lo g y in th e fo llo w in g w o rk s: K a rl B a r th , P ro t-
e s ta n t T h eo lo g y in th e N in e te e n th C e n tu ry : I ts B a c k g r o u n d a n d H is to r y , N ew
e d . (G r a n d R ap id s: W m . B. E e r d m a n601- 593
s ,2
(, K a r lm a n n B ey sch lag ,
D ie E rla n g e r T heologie (E rla n g e n : ^ r t i n - L u t h e r - V e r l a g , 1993), 61-83 M a t-
th e w B eck er, The S e lf-G iv in g G o d a n d S a lv a tio n H isto ry: T he T r in ita r ia n The-
o lo g y o ffo h a n n e s v o n H o fm a n n (N e w Y ork: T 8 T C la r k I n te r n a tio n a l, 2( 4
M a tth e w B eck er, A p p r e c ia tin g fo e L ife a n d W o r k o f J o h a n n e s V. H o f m a n n ,
L u th e r a n Q u a rte r ly 1/ (2003): 1 7 7 -9 8 M a tth e w B eck er, H o f m a n n as I c h - ^ e -
o logie? T he O b je c t o f G e o l o g y in J o h a n n v o n H o f m a n n s W erke, C o n co rd ia
J o u r n a l 29 (2003): 2 6 5 -9 3 M a tth e w B eck er, H o f m a n n s R e v isio n is t C h r is to l-
ogy, L u th e r a n Q u a rte r ly 17 (2003): 2 8 8 -3 2 8 M a tth e w B eck er, T h e S elf-G iv -
in g G o d : T h e T r in ity in J o h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n s G e o lo g y , P ro E cclesia 12
(2003): 4 1 7 -4 6 G e r h a r d F o rd e , T he L a w -G o s p e l D ebate: A n In te r p r e ta tio n /
I ts H is to r ic a l D e v e lo p m e n t (M in n e a p o lis : A u g s b u rg P u b lis h in g H o u se , 1969),
1 2 -3 6 L o w ell G re e n , T he E r la n g e n S ch o o l o f Theology: I ts H isto ry, T eaching,
a n d P ra ctice ( F o r t W a y n e , IN : L u th e r a n L egacy, 2010), 105-33 M a r ti n H e in ,
L u th e r is c h e s B e k e n n tn is u n d E r la n g e r Theologie im 19. J a h r h u n d e r t (G te rslo h :
G . M o h n , 1984), 2 0 -2 3 , 7 71 254 - 218
182
124
38113
25-
4-
17-
6-,7
,,
S c h u ltz , G esetz u n d E v a n g e liu m (B erlin: L u th e r is c h e s V erla g sh a u s, 1958),110-
20. I n m y w r itin g o f th i s p ie c e , I a m p a r tic u la r ly in d e b te d to fo e w o r k o f B ec k er
a n d E o rd e . N o t o n ly d id th e y g iv e m e m u c h in s ig h t in to H o f m a n n s th in k -
in g , b u t th e ir w o r k d ir e c te d m e to th e m o s t im p o r ta n t s e c tio n s o f H o f m a n n s
w o rk s, ^ i s a rtic le is p a r tia lly b a s e d o n c h a p te r five o f m y d o c to r a l d is s e r ta tio n ,
T h e S e lf-D o n a tio n o f G o d : G e r h a r d F o rd e a n d th e Q u e s tio n o f A to n e m e n t in
th e L u th e ra n T r a d itio n .
2. O s c a r C u ll m a n n , C h r is t a n d T im e - .T h e P r im itiv e C h r is tia n C o n c e p tio n o fT im e
a n d H is to r y , tr a n s . F lo y d F ils o n (P h ila d e lp h ia : W e s tm in s te r P r e s s95
,( O scar
C u llm a n n , S a lv a tio n in H is to r y , tr a n s . S id n e y S o w ers (L o n d o n : S .C .M . P re s s,
3. See W o lf h a r t P a n n e n b e rg , Jesus: G o d a n d M a n , tr a n s . L ew is ^ f i lk in s a n d
D u a n e P r ie b e (P h ila d e lp h ia : W e s tm in s te r P r e s s ,1968) W o lf h a r t P a n n e n b e rg ,
R e v e la tio n a s H is to r y (N e w Y ork: M a c m illa n , 1968).
4. See G u s ta f A u l n , C h r is tu s V icto r: A n H is to r ic a l S tu d y o f th e Three M a in Types
o f th e Id e a o f A t o n e m e n t , tr a n s . A . G . H e b e r t (N e w Y ork: M a c m illa n , 1969),
1 0 7 -8 L e n n a r t P in o m a a , F a ith V icto rio u s: A n I n tr o d u c tio n to L u th e r s The-
o lo g y, tr a n s . W a lte r j. K o k k o n e n (P h ila d e lp h ia : F o r tr e s s P re s s , 1963), 4 6 - 5 7
P h ilip W a ts o n , L e t G o d B e G od! A n In te r p r e ta tio n o f t h e T h eo lo g y o f M a r t i n
L u th e r (P h ila d e lp h ia : F o rtre s s P re s s, 1970), 116-25.
5. See G u s ta f A u l n , The F a ith o ft h e C h r is tia n C h u rch , tr a n s . E ric W a h ls tr o m a n d
G . E v e re tt A r d e n (P h ila d e lp h ia : M u h le n b e rg P re s s, 1948), 199-210.
6. See G e r h a r d F o rd e , T h e W o r k o f C h r is t, in C h r is tia n D o g m a tic s , e d . C a rl
B ra a te n a n d R o b e r t Je n s o n (P h ila d e lp h ia : F o r tr e s s P re s s, 1983), 2 :5-104 G e r-
h a r d F o rd e , C a u g h t in fo e A ct: R e flectio n s o n th e W o r k o f C h r is t, i n A M o r e
R a d ic a l G ospel: E ssa ys o n E s c h a to lo g y , A u th o r ity , A to n e m e n t, a n d E c u m e n is m ,
e d . M a r k M a tte s a n d S tev e n P a u ls o n (G r a n d R ap id s: W m . B. E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 4 ),
85- 97
7. B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 3 G re e n , The E r la n g e n Sch o o l, 105. F o r th e S tan -
d a r d b io g ra p h ie s o f H o f m a n n , see H e in r ic h S c h m id , Z u m G e d c h tn is a n
H o f m a n n , in V e rm isc h te A u fs tz e v o n P ro fesso r v o n H o fm a n n : E in e A u s w a h l
a u s d e r Z e its c h r ift f r P r o te s ta n tis m u s u n d K irc h e , e d . H e in r ic h S c h m id (E r-
la n g e n : A . D e ic h e rt, 1878), v - x x ii i P a u l W a p le r, Jo h a n n e s V. H o fm a n n : E in Be-
it r a g z u r G esch ich te d e r th e o lo g isch e n G ru n d p r o b le m e , d e r kirc h lic h en u n d d er
p o litis c h e n B e w e g u n g e n im 19. J a h r h u n d e r t (L eipzig: A d o lf D e ic h e r t, 1914).
8. B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 3.
14
regularly attended Bible studies led by the focal pastor Johann
G ottfried Schner and participated in his pietistic cell called
the Christentumsgesellschafi (Society of Christianity). Such
pietistic inftuences provided by H ofm anns m other were rein-
forced in his early education at the M elanchthon Gymnasium
in Nrnberg.10 The school offered an education that was a syn-
thesis of classical hum anism the emphasis of the school was
on classical languages at which H ofm ann excelled11 and Lu-
theran Pietism H Eor this reason, it may be safely surm ised that
Lutheran Pietism played an early and significant role in the life
of the young Hofm ann. Such a pervasive influence seems clear,
even in spite of his reported initial lack of zeal for the faith.
Hegel, Schelling, and Kant represent
important influences Hofmanns
development.
In 1827 H ofm ann briefly attended Erlangen, where he studied
under C hristian Krafft, who inculcated in the young Hofm ann
an appreciation for the im portance of a deep study of the Scrip-
tures. Krafft also spurred him on to a deeper personal piety.15
Both of these factors would later influence his choice to write
biblical com mentaries as p art of his larger theological project.
Another significant influence on H ofm ann comes from his en-
gagement w ith the G erm an Idealist philosophers who at the
time dom inated the University of Berlin.16 H ofm ann moved to
Berlin to continue his studies in 182). Despite his initial lack of
interest in their thought, Hegel, Schelling, and Kant represent
im portant influences on H ofm anns development. Particu-
larly in the philosophy of Hegel and Schelling, history is seen
as an eschatological process of divine and hum an self-develop-
ment. Although it is, of course, difficult to draw straight lines
between these influences and H ofm anns writings, such themes
are clearly present in his later theology. The Reformed-Pietist
father of Protestant L i b e r a l i s m . Eriedrich Schleiermacher, also
stands as a major figure in the intellectual m ilieu of H ofm anns
student days in Berlin. In spite of the fact that H ofm ann did
not favor Schleiermacher as an exegetical theologian,18 aspects
of Schleiermachers theology of consciousness appear to have
exercised an influence on him .19
9. G re e n , T he E rla n g e n School, 16.
10. I b id .
11. B eeker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 3 -4 .
12. I b id ., 3.
13. G re e n , T he E rla n g e n School, 106-7 W apler> Jo h a n n e s V. H o fm a n n , 11.
14. G re e n , T he E rla n g e n School, 106-7.
15. W a p le r, Jo h a n n e s V. H o fm a n n , 16.
16. G re e n , T he E rla n g e n School, 107-8 B ecker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 5-7.
17. B ecker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 6 ,1 0 2 -2 0 .
18. I b id ., 5.
19. I b id ., 3 5 ,4 0 .
LOGIA
At Berlin the thinker whom H ofm ann found the m ost in-
telleetually entieing was the Lutheran historian Leopold von
Ranke. Rankes historieal m ethod relied on a striet empiri-
eism. In this regard, Rankes m ethod broke with the then per-
vasive influenee of Hegels philosophy of history, whieh he
believed destroyed the relevanee of hum an ageney by eausing
the empirieal and eonerete reality of the historieal proeess to
beeome eireum seribed by a eoneept^ that is, Hegels no-
tion of history as the self-realization of the Geist.22 Neverthe-
less, Ranke did not deny the m eaning and providential unity
of history. On the eontrary, he saw it as an unfolding of G ods
plan for humanity. In faet Ranke held that G ods nature, will,
and purposes eould be direetly read off the empirical process
ofhistory.^
After eompleting his aeademie degrees, H ofm ann spent time
at Erlangen as a professor before teaching at Rostock between
r842 and 1845 Although he was very fond of Rostock and re-
ceived a warm reception there, he eventually returned to Er-
langen where the Neo-Lutheran Renaissance led by Adolph
Harle and a num ber of other lum inariesvon Erank, Del-
itzsch, Zezschwitz, Hoefling, Theodosius Harnack, Thomasius,
and so forth was well underway. Neo-Eutheran theology as
it was practiced at Erlangen during the nineteenth century
attem pted not merely to revive the classic Lutheran theology
of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries but also to reapply
it and in some cases to reinterpret it in light ofm odern Ger-
m an philosophical and cultural movements, notably Germ an
Romanticism a n d Idealism, as well as newer historical research
and exegesis. Hrroughout the nineteenth century and moving
on iffio the m id-twentieth century, Erlangen became a hotbed
of Neo-Lutheran theology. Considering H ofm anns upbring-
ing in the Bavarian Eutheran Church, as well as his interest in
the new intellectual movements perm eating Germany, it is not
surprising that he found a convivial intellectual environm ent
among the theologians of Erlangen.
HEILSGESCHICHTE, SCRIPTURE, AN D THE
STRUCTURE OF RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE
Having reviewed H ofm anns early life and inftuences, we now
tu rn to his understanding of Scripture, revelation, and Heilsge-
schichte. In order to do this, we will prim arily examine his
20. I b id ., 7 H e in , L u th e r is c h e s B e k e n n tn is , 124-25.
21. L e o p o ld v o n R a n k e , T he T h eo ry a n d P ra ctice o fH is to r y , tr a n s . a n d e d . GeoTg
G . Ig g e rs, W ilm a Ig g e rs, a n d K o n r a d v o n M o ltk e ( I n d ia n a p o lis : B o b b s -M e rrill,
1973 (, 7 .
22. See G . W . F. H eg el, P h e n o m e n o lo g y o f s p ir it, tr a n s . A . V. M ille r (O x fo rd : O x -
f o r d U n iv e rs ity P re s s , 1977).
23. See b r ie f e o m m e n ts in R a n k e , H is to r y , 100. See d is e u s s io n o f R a n k e a n d h is h is -
to r ic a l m e th o d in F re d e ric k c . B eiser, T he G e r m a n H is to r ic is t T ra d itio n (N e w
Y ork: O x f o r d U n iv e rs ity P re s s, 2011), 253-88. A ls o see d is c u s s io n in B eck er, The
S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 7,91 -1 0 2 ; G re e n , T he E r la n g e n Sch o o l, 1 07-8.
24. B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 7 - 8 G re e n , T he E rla n g e n S ch o o l, 108.
25. B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 8 - G re e n , The E rla n g e n S ch o o l, 1 0 8 -9 .
26. B eck er, The S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 8 - 9 . F o r s o u rc e s o n th e E rla n g e n sch o o l, see th e
fo llo w in g w o rk s c ite d p rev io u sly : K a r lm a n n B ey sch lag , D ie E rla n g e r T h eologie;
L o w ell G re e n , The E rla n g e n School, M a r ti n H e in , L u th e risc h e s B e k e n n tn is ; a n d
also F r ie d r ic h K a n tz e n b a c h , D ie E rla n g e r Theologie: G ru n d lin ie n ih rer E n t-
W ic klu n g im R a h m e n d e r th e o lo g isch e n F a k u lt t 1743-1877 (M n ch en : Evang.
P r e s s e v e r b a n d f r B a y ern , i960); S c h u ltz , G esetz u n d E v a n g e liu m , 9 8 -1 2 0 .
h e : l s g e s c h :c h t e a n d a t d n e m e n t

book Biblische H ermeneutik, the content of which we will 0C- David Friedrich Strauss.33 Contem porary Rationalists were
casionally clarify w ith reference to some of H ofm anns other just as problematic as their Rrotestant scholastic predecessors.
works. This work is based on a series of lectures delivered by Just as the latter came to the text of Scripture with the precon-
H ofm ann to his students at Erlangen in 1867 In this work ceived dogma of scriptural inerrancy, so too the former have
H ofm ann argues that the Bible is a historical docum ent that come to the text with their rationalistic prejudice against mir-
m ust be understood on the basis of empirical historical meth- acles and prophecy. Hence, biblical scholars like Strauss have
ods: The Scripture is not a text book teaching conceptual explained Scripture, which is a historical docum ent, as mythi-
truths but rather a docum ent of an historical process, and . . . cal3* purely on the basis of their philosophical prejudices.
has originated w ithin the history recorded therein.3 At the
same time. Scripture m ust be regarded as the docum ent from
which the church derives its identity and its concrete experi-
ence of G ods reality and truth.
H ofm ann begins by arguing that the Scriptures have been Hofmann argues that the Scripture
abused throughout the ages by a lack of attention to their con-
Crete historical nature. This is prim arily the fault ofthe Church
is not a text book teaching
Fathers and the medieval theologians who understood Scrip- conceptual truths.
ture on the basis of allegory and often times reduced it to a
sourcebook of dogma.29 D uring the Reformation, Luther and
his colleagues returned the historical-literal sense of Scripture
(sensus literalis) to its prim acy and briefly restored the true
sense o fth e Bible to the church.3 Unfortunately, Rrotestant or- Having considered both the dogmatic ditches of rationalism
thodoxy moved the study of Scripture back again to the previ- and scholasticism in tandem, Hofm ann now moves to a dis-
ous state of affairs through the doctrine of plenary and verbal cussion of what he considers to be a proper understanding of
inspiration.33 This needlessly burdened the Bible with the ab- the Bible. According to our author, we m ust understand that
stract dogma o finerrancy and made it an infallible textbook of the Holy Bible bears authoritative testimony to the historical
abstract doctrines, rather than a concrete product ofthe history development which has taken place in the Church.3 By the
of hum an interaction with God through the history of Israel C hurch it appears that H ofm ann means, in typical Lutheran
and the early church. fashion,3^ to refer to the whole people of God throughout the
At this point it should be noted in passing that in dealing ages, ^rerefore such a description includes ancient Israel as well.
with the question of inerrancy and verbal inspiration, H o f t r o u g h the com m unal history of the people of God, God
m ann displays Rankes disdain for anything but strict empiri- works out his purposes for humanity. In H ofm anns earlier
cism. In other words, he regards any intervening concept that work. Der Schriftbeweis, he claims that this purpose is the ere-
guides ones interpretation of $cripture that is, the supposi- ation of a universal eom m unity of love and fellowship with
tion ofverbal and plenary inspiration as being distorting. O f God.37 He deseribes the gradual development of sueh a eom-
course, orthodox Lutheran theologians would counter that the m unity as beginning with A braham and his family, later ex-
doctrine of inspiration is not som ething im posed on the text, panding into the transfam iliar com m unity of the nation of
but rather found w ithin it (for example, 2 Tim 3:16). $imilarly, Israel and then finally beeoming a universal and transnational
most contem porary philosophers and historians would con- phenom enon in the ehureh. In later life, he even went so far as
sider H ofm anns and Rankes belief in a strict empiricism to be to claim, in defiance of AC X V I I , that this would be consum-
both impossible and naive. Put bluntly, all interpretation en- m ated in C hrists m illennial rule on earth.3 It should be noted
tails presuppositions.33 that H ofm anns view of history here in m any respects echoes
According to H ofm ann, the abstract com m itm ents of Prot- that of Hegel, who also believed that the goal of history was the
estant orthodoxy were unfortunately counteracted by the creation of an ideal community, that is, the $ittlichkeit com
equally problematic rationalism of the eighteenth and nine-
teenth centuries. H ofm ann here m entions Im m anuel Kant and

33. H o f m a n n , I n te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 12-13. See I m m a n u e l K a n t, R e lig io n w ith in

th e L im its o f R e a so n A l o n e , tr a n s . ^ e o d o r e G re e n e a n d H o y t H u d s o n (S an
F ra n c isc o : H a r p e r O n e , i9 6 0 ) D a v id F r ie d r ic h S tra u s s , T he L ife o fje s u s , C riti-
27. jD h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , I n te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , tr a n s . C h r is tia n P re u s (M in - ca lly E x a m in ed ., tr a n s . G e o rg e E lio t (C a m b rid g e , U K : C a m b r id g e U n iv e rs ity
n e a p o lis: A u g s b u rg P u b lis h in g H o u se , 1959), x i. ^ i s w o rk is a g o o d a n d so m e - P re s s, 2010).
w h a t a b rid g e d tra n s la tio n o f H o f m a n n s B ib lisch e H e r m e n e u tik (N rd lin g e n : 34. H o f m a n n , I n te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 13.
35. I b id ., 28.
28. H o f m a n n , In te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 204. 36. L u th e r a n d th e L u th e r a n s c h o la stic s b o th c o n s id e re d th e c h u r c h to b e a n o r-
29. I b id ., 4 - 9 . d e r o f c re a tio n e s ta b lis h e d in th e G a r d e n o f E d e n see A E 1: 9 2 -9 7 . A ls o see
30. I b id ., 9. H e in r ic h S c h m id , T he D o c tr in a l T h eo lo g y o f t h e E v a n g elica l L u th e r a n C h u rc h ,
31. I b id ., 10. t r a n s . C h a rle s H a y a n d H e n r y Jaco b s (M in n e a p o lis : A u g s b u rg P u b lis h in g
32. See s im ila r e la im s f r o m o n e o f B u ltm a n n s m o re lu e id m o m e n ts : R u d o lf B u lt- H o u se , 1961), 6 0 4 -2 3 .
m a n n , Is E xegesis w ith o u t P r e s u p p o s itio n s P o ssib le? in E x is te n c e a n d F aith: 37. J o h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is, 2 n d e d . (N rd lin g e n : C . H . B eck,
S h o r te r W r itin g s o f R u d o l f B u ltm a n n , tra n s. S c h u b e r t O g d en (N e w York: M e -
r id ia n , i960), 2 8 9 -9 6 . 38. B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 23
3 .
16
munity. Similarly it should be observed that this interest in
the etab lish m en t of authentic com m unity is com m on to the
thought of m any of the early f o n H ^ th - c e n tu r y Romantics.
Although these purposes of God represent the m eaning of
all history, they are not the result of simple, natural historical
development. H ofm ann writes:
Tike the Church and that development, the Scripture is not
the result of the historical grow th o fm an k in d but the work
of God. W ithin hum an history, its specific function is to
serve the realization of G ods ultimate purpose both for
history and in conflict with it.
In this sense, while Heilsgeschichte is characterized by
gradual development, it is also, in a sense, disruptive in that
it represents G ods disruption and conflict w ith the natural
development of hum an history and its possibilities. In light of
this fact, H ofm ann characterizes this history as m iraculous
(wunderbar):
All those historical events and results which are the real-
ization of G ods ultim ate purposes, that is. Holy History
and its effects, we call miracle, because they stand in
opposition to the natural development of man. . . . $crip-
ture shares in this m iracle of Holy History. Not only is
it given to be the standard of the actual life of the Church,
but it also belongs to the m iraculous history of the Church.
$cripture is a m iracle both in its origin and in its content
because it is the docum ent of Holy History.
Hence, for H ofm ann, the Bibles account of salvation history
as a m iraculous development that disrupts lim ited hum an
possibilities, due to finitude and sin, finds its confirm ation in
the religious consciousness of the individual Christian. Just as
the history of salvation disrupts the continuity of purely tem-
poral development, so too, conversion to faith in C hrist dis-
rupts the hum an persons previous existence under sin. Tor
H ofm ann, C hristianity is the relationship between God and
m an which has been m ediated through Jesus C hrist; it did
not originate from the nature of this world as given through
creation and perverted by sin. H ofm ann writes that we can
know this because we are absolutely certain of C hrists personal
presence as m ediated by faith: The C hristian is more sure of
Christ, in his past work and active presence, as the one who
personally mediates his relationship to God, than of anything
that is perceptible and given to his senses. Tor this reason, the
C foistian becomes aware that the content of the $criptures au-
39. See diseu ssiG n in C h a rle s Taylr, H eg el (C a m b rid g e , U K : C a m b rid g e U n iv e r-
4 0 . See diseu ssiG n in F re d e rie k B eiser, T he R o m a n tic Im p e ra tiv e : The C o n ce p t /
E a r ly G e r m a n R o m a n tic is m (C a m b rid g e , M ass: H a r v a r d U n iv e rs ity P re s s,
2 0 0 4 ), 31-33.
41. H fm a n n , In te r p r e tin g th e B ible, 28.
42. I b id .
43. I b id ., 30.
4 4 . I b id .
45. I b id .
LOGIA
thentically communicates G ods reality and works because they
bear witness to Christ and mediate the experience of Christ: In
accordance with that fact, he evaluates the witness which $crip-
ture bears to the history which forms the basis of that aware-
ness and of which he [the Christian] is the result. H ofm ann
holds that religious experience is of the utm ost im portance for
the verification of the truth of C hristian dogma. He goes so far
as to sayin a famous and often quoted saying I the Chris-
tian am the m aterial of the science of my theology.
The miracle of conversion and regeneration directs the be-
liever to the com m unity of the church and the $criptures,
wherein Christ is the culm ination of a chain of ever-in-
creasing miracles:
$ince $cripture is the docum ent of Holy History, its con-
tent too m ust be miracle. $ince basically Christ is the con-
tent of this history. He is the absolute miracle. All miracles
in the Bible, both those that point towards Him and those
which He perform s Himself, m ust be understood and with
reference to H im .. . . But since we understand and evalu-
ate this history (whose product and testim ony is Holy
$cripture) in light of Jesus, the individual miracle has to
be interpreted as part of an historical process of which
Christ is the center. A Biblical miracle rem ains unintel-
ligible and lacks true value for theological understanding
when treated by itself and apart from the special place and
significance for Holy History.
In that Christ is the supreme miracle, he is the end product of
salvation history and its great miracles. H ofm ann argues that
the chain of miracles that constitute salvation history begins
with creation ex nihilo and moves on through the calling of the
patriarchs and the establishment of the Israelite kingdom .
Tor this reason the experience of conversion and faith in
Christ is not that of the lonely individual, but is m ediated
through the participation of the believer in the ecclesiasti-
cal community. As we observed above, the experience of
the faithful person w ithin the church of God in C hrist only
m akes sense if the whole m iraculous chain of historical de-
velopment presented in the Bible is, in fact, a generally ac-
curate though certainly not i n f a n t description of the
history of the people of God. In other words, if the chain of
events were inaccurately presented in $cripture, the religious
experience of the C hristian would be either radically different
or nonexistent. Therefore H ofm ann relies on the continuity
of hiH orical-com m unal development to explain the link be-
tween the believer and the person of Christ. H ofm ann referred
to the total factual life situation of the C hristian as the Tatbes-
tand.51 K arlm ann Beyschlag is therefore correct in asserting
46. I b id .
47 H o f m a n n , D e r S c h riftb e w e is, 2 n d e d ., 1:10 tr a n s la tio n m y o w n .
48. H o f m a n n , I n te r p r e tin g th e B ib le, 31.
49. I b id ., 31-32.
50. I b id ., 32.
51. See B eek er, The S e lf-G iv in g G od, 3 4 -5 0 .
HEILSGESCHICHTE AN D ATONEMENT 7

that H ofm anns theology prim arily functions by discerning a ments regarding the Father, Son, and Spirit than the Nieene
correlation betw een personal religious experience and histori- Creed. Sehleiermaehers reasons for this m arginalization of
cal revelation.2 traditional doetrine ofG od are elear. Sinee as we will observe
We should stop at this point of our exposition to note that below the foundational experience of the divine is one of ab-
H ofm anns accent on the im portance of religious experi- solute dependence on G ods reality as the unitary ground of all
ence bears not only a strong resemblance to the Pietism of his being, the doctrine of the Trinity m ust fotimately lack value. If
youth, but also to the modified, rationalistic Pietism of Fried- religious experience is merely that of the creatures dependency
rich $chleiermacher. As we have already observed, not only did on the Creator, then it is impossible to correlate directly such a
H ofm ann encounter $chleiermacher and his work during his consciousness to G ods internal T rinitarian relations.
sojourn in Berlin, but $chleiermachers presuppositions regard-
ing the im portance of religious experience in establishing the
tru th of Christian doctrine were highly influential among theo-
logians of all stripes throughout f o n e tn th - c e n tu r y Germany.
In his second edition of Der christliche Glaube of r83r, Schleiermacher rejected the orthodox
$chleiermacher sought to reconcile C hristian doctrine with
Christian dogma ofthe two natures.
philosophy and the advances of learning brought on by the
Enlightenm ent. To do this, he made all C hristian doctrine
depend on inferences draw n from varying states of religious
consciousness. In particular, $chleiermacher accepted K ants
supposition that because the m ind imposes its own categories
of analysis upon the senses, hum an beings cannot know things Schleiermachers deduction of C hristian doctrine from reli-
in themselves (Ding an sich) but only things insofar as they gious experience represents a complex process that draws on
have effects on our consciousness. ^For this reason, Schleier- m any assumptions that few contem porary readers will find
mcher insists that theological statem ents m ust center on our convincing. According to his Glaubenslehre, w ithin our nor-
consciousness o fG o d and not on abstract propositions. This mal experience of the world there is reciprocity between a
being said, it is indeed possible to make true theological state- sense offreedom we possess toward various objects and a sense
ments about the being o fG o d or the state o fth e world, as he o f dependency toward the same. No m atter what the object of
puts it, as long as they are based on inferences from our reli- experience that one encounters, there is necessarily an element
gious experience. of both sensations. These secondary sensations contrast with
Conversely, propositional statem ents that do not correlate the m ost prim al experience of humanity, that of absolute de-
to or explain states of religious consciousness are worthless pendence. W hen hum ans have such an experience, the reci-
abstractions. The m ost fam ous example of this principle is procity between freedom and dependency breaks down and the
$chlH erm achers consignm ent of the doctrine of the Trinity feeling of pure dependency becomes manifest.Because ofthe
to a brief appendix at the end o fth e Glaubenslehre, wherein he profound contrast between the feeling of absolute dependency
expresses his belief that the ancient heresy of M odalism m ight and norm al hum an experiences o fthe world, we are able to dif-
be a better guide for interpreting the New Testament state- ferentiate this sensation as representing our consciousness of
God. Although the hum an feeling of dependency on God is
universal, it is not consistent or perfect in its intensity. More-
52. B ey sch lag , D ie E r la n g e r Theologie, 63 tra n sla ti n m y o w n . See s im ila r d e s e rip - over as our consciousness m atures we come to recognize a cer-
tio n in K a n tz e n b a c h , D ie E r la n g e r T heologie, 192. See verall d eserip ti n o f
H fm a n n s u n d e r s ta n d in g o f salvati n h is to r y a n d e x p e rie n e e in B eek er, The
tain frustration in the development of this religious sense. This
S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 3 1-88 G re e n , The E rla n g e n S c h o o l, 110-21 H e in , L u th e risc h e s is due to sin, which is by definition everything . . . that has ar-
B e k e n n tn is , 124 35 .
rested the free development of God-consciousness . 61
53 See b o r n a s K elly, T heology a t th e Void: T he R e tr ie v a l o f E x p e r ie n c e (N tre
D a m e : U n iv e rs ity o f N o tre D a m e P re s s , 2002), 15. K elly w rite s: ^ i s is th e k e y For this reason, hum anity is in need of redem ption through
to th e a p p e a l to h u m a n e x p e rie n e e i n th e d e fen se o f re lig io n . H e w ill t r y to Jesus, who was a hum an being who possessed perfect and unin-
re im a g in e a n d g r o u n d re lig to n w ith in a K a n tia n c o n s tr u c t. W h a te v e r bjee-
tiv e d a ta a re d e a lt w ith b y th e m i n d a re e x p e rie n e e d th r o u g h th e f o rm s a n d terrupted God-consciousness. W hile $chleiermacher reject-
e o n e e p ts e o n fe r re d b y th e s u b je e t. B u t S e h le ie rm a e h e r ges e v e n f u r th e r b y ed the orthodox C hristian dogma ofthe two natures, he viewed
g r o u n d in g h is m e th o d in th e h u m a n e x p e rie n c e f G d th a t o c c u rs in th e in -
te r io r it y o f th e s u b je c t a n d is accessible th r o u g h s im p le re fle c tfo n o n th e fa c t o f the traditional doctrine o fth e divinity of Christ as pointing to
e x iste n c e , ^ i s b e c o m e s th e c o m p re h e n s iv e p rin c ip le b y w h ic h r e lig io n is r e d e - Jesus God-consciousness, which constituted a divine element
fin e d . I t is th is a p p e a l to in n e r e x p e rie n c e th a t m a d e S c h le ie rm a c h e rs aplgy
fo r re lig io n so e ffec tiv e (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). w ithin him. Possessing a superabundance of God-conscious-
54. See Im m a n u e l K a n t, C r itiq u e o f P u r e R e a s o n , tr a n s . N rm an K e m p S m ith
(N e w Y ork: S t. M a r ti n s P re s s, 1958), 7 4 ,8 7 ,1 4 9 ,1 7 2 -7 3 . See a c ritiq u e f m d ern
K a n tia n e p is te m o lo g y in theol gy in P a u l H in lic k y , P a th s N o t T a ken : F ates
o f T heology f r o m L u th e r th r o u g h L e ib n iz (G r a n d R ap id s: !^ . B. E e r d m a n s ,
20 0 9 ), 4 3 -8 6 . H e lm u t T h ielick e h a s tr a c e d b a c k th e thelgy c n scfo u sn ess to 57. I b id ., 738-51.
D e s c a r te s . See c o m m e n ts in H e lm u t ^ i e l i c k e . The E v a n g elica l F a ith , tr a n s . 58. I b id ., 14.
G e o ffre y B ro m ile y (G r a n d R ap id s: . B. E e rd m a n s , 1974-1982), 1:38-64. 59. I b id ., 16-18.
55 F rie d ric h S e h le ie rm a e h e r, T he C h r is tia n F a ith , tr a n s . a n d e d . H . R . M a c k in to s h 60. I b id ., 25.
a n d 1. S. S te w a rt (N e w Y o rk : T & T C la rk , 1928), 125-28. 61. I b id ., 271.
56. Ib id . 62. I b id ., 361.
18
ness, C hrist com m unicated it to the church, which then in tu rn
transm its it to those who subsequently associate themselves
w ith the visible congregation of the faithful. The fact that we
receive a constant increase in our God-consciousness w ithin
the visible com m unity of the church confirm s Jesus historical
reality. W hen left to itself, hum an nature lacks the possibility of
an uninterrupted development of its God-consciousness. This
being the case, logically there m ust have been a hum an being
at some point in the past who possessed perfect and uninter-
rupted God-consciousness that he transm itted to the church.
Otherwise, the intensification of God-consciousness that per-
sons w ithin the church experience would be inexplicable, since
the increase of God-consciousness in the church m ust have a
source. $ince the source according to the witness of the New
Testament is Jesus, the present com m unitys experience C O -
heres w ith the historical record.
Lutherans have historically confessed
that the finite is capable ofthe
infinite (finitum capax infinitum).
As can be observed, H ofm anns emphasis on the founda-
tional nature of religious experience for C hristian doctrine
strongly m irrors $chleiermacher. Moreover, m uch like $chlei-
ermacher, H ofm ann views religious consciousness as being in-
telligible only as the basis of a previous historical process. For
this reason, both H ofm ann and $chleierm acher argue that the
unbroken chain o fth e churchs religious consciousness is the
m edium through which the believer is united to and becomes
conscious of C hrist and his saving work. The major difference
between the two theologians is that because $chleiermacher
believed C hristian experience was exclusively that of the ex-
perience of God-consciousness in association w ith C hrist, he
rejected the authority o fth e Old Testament, since it deals with
the experience o fth e Israelite people prior to Christ.^ By con-
trast, as we noted earlier, H ofm ann viewed the people of Israel
and the church existing w ithin the same continuous process
of Heilsgeschichte.
W hat is evident from both of these approaches is an attempt
to verify the tru th o fC hristian doctrine in a m anner that nine-
ffenth-century Germ ans trained in both ?ietism and En-
lightenm ent reason would find credible. Beyond this, though,
one may detect in both treatm ents the consequences of reject-
ing historic Lutheran claims regarding the com m unication of
attributes w ithin the hypostatic union. According to ortho-
dox Lutheran teaching, the hum an Jesus receives the fullness
64. I b id ., 68-11.
LOGIA
of divine glory through his anhypostatie participation in the
hypostasis of the hogos (genus majestaticum; see FC SD V I I I ;
Triglotta, 1041).65 For this reason, Lutherans have historically
confessed that the finite is capable of the infinite (finitum ca-
pax infinitum) in contrast to the Reformed and Roman Catholic
insistence that the finite is not capable of the infinite (finitum
capax infinitum).66 Beyond the clear $criptural support for
this proposition (M att 28:18; John 3:13; Rhil 2:6; Col 2:3, ) , the
Lutheran theologians have insisted that because G ods infinite
majesty contains w ithin itself infinite possibilities, it m ust also
include the possibility of m aking the finite capable of receiv-
ing itself.? The ultimate consequence of this teaching is that
the hum anity of the risen Jesus is not confined to heaven but is
present in a mysterious sense with his church in the word and
the sacraments. The believer therefore need not seek confir-
m ation of the reality or truth of the gospel beyond the word
and the sacraments w ithin which Christ is active and present,
com m unicating his truth and benefits to faith.
As we have seen, it is fairly clear that $chleiermacher would
reject such an account of Christology. Due to his Reformed
background $chleiermacher came from a family of Reformed
Rietists and acceptance of a mystical quasinaturalistic ac-
count of Jesus divinity (if one indeed may call it that), it is clear
that he never would have accepted the notion of the omnipres-
ence of Christ according to both natures. This background
sheds light on his understanding of the believers link with
Christ through the churchs m ediation of religious experience.
Lacking a belief in the possibility of the risen and om nipresent
C hrists personal presence in word and sacrament, $chleierm-
acher m ust rely on the chain of com m unal religious experience
passed on from generation to generation to create a connection
with the Messiah.
65. See d is c u s s io n in th e fo llo w in g so u rces: P a u l A lth a u s , D ie ch ristlich e W a h rh e-
it: L e h r b u c h d e r D o g m a tik (G te rs lo h : C . B e r te ls m a n n , 1952), 4 4 8 -5 3 J o h a n n
B aier, C o m p e n d iu m th e o lo g ia e p o s itiv a e , e d . C . F. w . W a lth e r (G r a n d R ap id s:
E m m a n u e l P re s s , 2 0 0 5 -2 0 0 6 ), 2 :5 2 -7 0 M a r ti n C h e m n itz , T he Tw o N a tu r e s
in C h r is t, tr a n s . J .A . 0 . P r e u s (St. L o u is: C o n c o r d ia P u b lis h in g H o u se , 1971),
2 4 1 -4 6 A d o lf H o e n e c k e , E v a n g elica l L u th e r a n D o g m a tic s, tra n s. Jo el F r e d ric h
a n d o th e r s (M ilw a u k e e : N o r th w e s te r n P u b lis h in g H o u se , 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 9 ), 3 :8 9 -9 9
N ic o la u s H u n n iu s , E p ito m e c r e d e n d o r u m , tr a n s . P a u l G o tth e il ( N u re m b u rg :
U .E . S e b a ld , 1847), 1 0 4 -7 L e o n a r d H tte r , C o m p e n d iu m lo c o ru m th eo lo g ico -
r u m e x S c r ip tu ris sa cris e t lib ro C o n co rd ia e: la tein isc h , d eu tsc h , en g lisch , tr a n s .
H e n r y Jaco b s (S tu ttg a rt-B a d C a n n s ta tt: F r o m m a n n -V e rla g , 2 0 0 6 ), 2 :9 2 8 -3 2
J o h a n n G e r h a r d , O n C h r is t, tr a n s . R ic h a r d D in d a , G e o lo g i c a l C o m m o n p la c -
es: E x eg esis IV (St. L o u is: C o n c o r d ia P u b lis h in g H o u s e , 2 0 0 9 ), 2 0 3 -8 7 C h r is -
ti a n L u th a r d t, K o m p e n d iu m d e r D o g m a tik (L eipzig: D rfflin g u n d F ra n k e ,
1893), 2 0 1 -4 J o h n T h e o d o re M u eller, C h r is tia n D o g m a tic s (St. L o u is: C o n c o r-
d ia P u b lis h in g H o u se , 2003), 2783 A le x a n d e r v o n O e ttin g e n , L u th e r is c h e
D o g m a tik : S y s te m d e r ch r is tlic h e n H e ilsw a h r h e it (M n c h e n : B eck , 1897-1902),
2.2:83-85 F r ie d r ic h P h ilip p i, K irch lich e G la u b en sle h re (G te rs lo h : G . B e rte ls -
m a n n , 1870-1901), 4 .1 :2 6 0 -7 6 F ra n c is P ie p e r, C h r is tia n D o g m a tic s (St. L ouis:
C o n c o r d ia P u b lis h in g H o u s e , 1951-1957), 2:152-242 P h ilip S chaff, The C reeds /
C h r is te n d o m (N e w Y ork: H a r p e r a n d B ro th e rs , 1881), 1:319-28 J o h n S ch aller,
B ib lic a l C h risto lo g y: A S tu d y in L u th e r a n D o g m a tic s (M ilw a u k e e : N o rth w e s t-
e r n P u b lis h in g H o u s e , 1981), 6 8 -7 8 S c h m id , D o c tr in a l T h eo lo g y, 53
4
66. R . M ic h a e l A lle n , R e fo r m e d T h eo lo g y ( E d in b u r g h : T&T C la rk , 2010), 19-22.
67. D a v id Scaer, p e r s o n a l c o n v e rs a tio n .
68. C la ss ic a l d e fe n s e o f th is p o s itio n is J o h a n n e s B re n z , D e p e r s o n a li u n io n e
d u a r u m n a tu r a r u m in C h risto , e t a scen su C h r is ti in co e lu m , ac sessio n e eiu s a d
d e x tr a m D e ip a tr is : q u a ve ra co rp o ris e t sa n g u in is C h r is ti p r a e s e n tia in C o en a
e x p lic a ta est, e t c o n fir m a ta (T b in g e n : M o r h a r d , 1561).
69. J o n a th a n H ill, T he H is to r y o fC h r is tia n T h o u g h t (D o w n e rs G ro v e: I n te rV a rs ity
h e : l s g e s c h :c h t e a n d a t o n e m e n t
In H ofm ann we find a similar, though not identical, under-
standing of religious experience and community. Therefore, it
should not be surprising that H ofm ann also rejects the ortho-
dox Lutheran understanding of the communicatio idiomatum.
Being less radical in his revisionism than Schleiermacher, H o f
m ann wished to m aintain the Trinity and the two natures. Nev-
ertheless, he also was intent on combining this with the newer
metaphysical thinking gleaned, yet again, from G erm an Ideal-
ism. In the process, H ofm ann reveals his deep discomfort with
and his implicit rejection o f the Lutheran capax.
H ofm anns account o fth e incarnation falls 0 the category
ofw hat was know n in the nineteenth century as Kenotic Chris-
tology.7 According to the theologians professing this theol-
ogy, the traditional Christology, which had assumed that the
incarnation did not alter the being of the second person of the
Trinity, was hopelessly flawed and led inexorably to a form of
Docetism. For this reason, broadly speaking, these theologians
claimed that in becom ing incarnate the $on had in some sense
contracted or partially divested him self of his divinity. $uch a
modification of the divine being was often referred to using
the traditional genera language of orthodox Lutheranism as
the genus kenoticum or tapeinoticum.71 As we will observe be-
low, this argum ent was in p art made possible by the Germ an
Idealist claim, present in Hegel and $chelling, that God is mu-
table and therefore changed and evolved through time.72
The two m ost famous proponents of kenotic Christology are
G ottfried Thomasius, an Erlangen colleague of H ofm ann and
later opponent on the issue of atonement, and Wolfgang Gess.
W hereas Thomasius satisfied him self with the proposition that
Jesus had lost his divine power, that is, omnipotence, omnipres-
ence, and so forth, in the incarnation, while retaining his moral
qualities,72 Gess even more radically insisted that the Logos had
in some sense contracted to the finite dimensions of a hum an
soul. Reduced to this level, the second person ofth e Trinity had
served in the place o fth e soul o fth e hum an Jesus.7^
Beyond their obvious desire to avoid what they perceived as
the creeping Docetism of traditional orthodoxy, the two afore
70. See M a r ti n B re id e rt, D ie k e n o tis c h e C h risto lo g ie des . Ja h r h u n d e r ts (G t-
ersl h: G te rs to h e r V e rla g s h a u s M hn, 1 77 ( D a v id B ro w n , D iv in e H u m a n -
ity: K e n o s is E x p lo r e d a n d D e fe n d e d (Lndn: S C M P re s s , 211) D a v id Law,
K enD tie C hristnl gy, in The B la c k w e ll C o m p a n io n to N in e te e n th - C e n tu ry
T heology, e d . D a v id F e rg u s ro n (O x fo rd : W iley -B laek w ell, 2 7 19251 ( ,- Thom -
as ^ m p s o n , N in e te e n th - C e n tu r y K en tie Christ l gy: T he W a x in g , W a n -
in g , a n d W e ig h in g fa Q u e s t fo r a c h e re n t O rth d xy, in E x p lo r in g K e n o tic
C hristology: T he S e lf-E m p ty in g o f G od, ed. c. S te p h e n E v a n s (N e w York: O x-
fo r d U n iv e rsity Press, 2006), 74-111; C la u d e W elch, G od a n d In c a r n a tio n in
M id - N in e te e n th C e n tu r y G e r m a n Theology: G. T h o m a siu s, /. A . D o rn e r, A . E.
B ie d e r m a n n (N e w York: O x fo r d U n iv e rs ity Press, 1965); C la u d e W elch, P ro t-
e s ta n t T h o u g h t in th e N in e te e n th C e n tu r y (N e w H a ven : Y ale U n iv e rsity Press,
1972-1985), 1:233-40.
71. See b rie f d is e u s s fo n in B ro w n , D iv in e H u m a n ity , 232-33.
72. See e nfessi nal L u th e ra n e ritiq u e in P ie p e r, C h r is tia n D o g m a tic s, 2 :2 9 2 -9 6 .
73. G ttfrie d ^ m a s iu s , C h r is ti P e rso n u n d W erk: D a rs te llu n g d e r eva n g elisch -
lu th e r is c h e n D o g m a tik v o m M itte lp u n k te d e r C h risto lo g ie a u s (B ria n g en : A n -
d re a s D e ie h e rt, 1886-1888), 2:411-12. See a d iseussi n f ^ m a s iu s in th e fl~
l w ing surees: B ey seh lag , D ie E r la n g e r Theologie,14-19, 2 4 -2 6 , 29-31, 5 3 >
9 3 - 9 8 G re e n , The E r la n g e n T heology, 139-48 H e in , L u th e r is c h e s B e k e n n tn is ,
2 4 6 - 5 4 Law , K en tie Christ l gy, 255-58 ^ m p s n , K en tie Christ l gy, 76. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 2 n d e d ., 2.1:212 q u o te d in B eck er, The Self- G ivin g
7 8 -8 5 W e le h , P r o te s ta n t T h o u g h t, 1:235-40.
74. W o lfg a n g F rie d rie h G e ss, C h r is ti P e rso n u n d W erk (B asel: B a h n m a ie r, 187-
1887), 3:345-41. Als see b r ie f s u m m a r y in Law, K en tie Christ l gy, 2 6 3 -7 3 78. J o h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 1st e d . (N rd lin g e n : C . H . B eck,
^ m p s n , K en tie Christ l gy, 87 W e lc h , P r o te s ta n t T h o u g h t, 1:234.
9
m entioned treatm ents also make elear the implieit assumption
that God in his infinite glory eannot eommunieate him self
to the finite. Consequently he m ust m odify his being in some
way to make possible his translation into the finite. $een from
this perspeetive, these aeeounts of the inearnation represent a
wholesale rejeetion of the Lutheran eapax. This being said, it
m ust be eautioned that these thinkers, partieularly those like
H ofm ann and Hromasius who viewed themselves as Lutherans,
did not intend this. Nevertheless, it m ust ultimately be admit-
These accounts ofthe incarnation
representa wholesale rejection /
the Lutheran capax.
ted that whether or not they intended sueh a denial of the Lu-
theran capax in theory, they definitely did so in praetiee.
In his treatm ent of the inearnation, H o f m a n n mak^.s r.laim s
similar to those advanced by his colleague Thomasius.75 In
beeoming hum an, Jesus rem ained the seeond person of the
Trinity, while losing his divine attributes of glory: We ean . . .
say that Christ has emptied him self of the divine glory, om-
nipotenee, omnipresenee and that out of a God has beeome
a hum an being.7^ A lthough Christ lost his divine power, the
irter-T rinitarian relationship of love between him self and the
Father rem ained and developed over the course of his earthly
life.77 The goal of the development of this perfect fellowship of
love between Jesus and the Father was the actualization of such
a relationship between God and humanity. $oteriologically and
eschatologically, this relationship serves as the archetype and
ground of all proper hum an relationship to God, and therefore
grounds the fellowship o fth e new hum anity with God as to be
found in the com m unity o fth e church.7
Given H ofm anns belief that Christ realized the perfect fel-
lowship of love between God and hum ans while at the same
time divesting him self of divine majesty, his reliance on the con-
tinuity ofthe churchs com m unal religious experience becomes
highly intelligible. Lacking the full glory of divinitysince
he has eliminated it in the incarnation in his humanity, the
earthly Christ cannot directly make his historical life and its
saving reality contem porary to the believer. He m ust therefore
75. F o r a d is c u s s io n o f H o f m a n n s C h ris to lo g y , see th e fo llo w in g : M a tth e w B eck er,
H o f m a n n s R e v isio n is t C h r is to lo g y B re id e rt, D ie k e n o tis c h e C h risto lo g ie,
161-84. S o m e th e o r iz e th a t ^ o m a s i u s s id e a o f th e in c a r n a tio n w a s a c tu a lly
in f lu e n c e d b y H o f m a n n .
G o d , 181.
77. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is, 2 n d e d . , 1:14
?. LOGIA

rely on the continuity ofthe churchs religious experience as the In a m anner rem iniseent of Vatican I I , 85 H ofm ann charac-
spiritual and historical link between him self and the believer. terizes the church itself as the most basic sacrament from which
the others are d e r i v e d . T h i s is the case because, as we have
seen, fellowship with the com m unity itself and its religious
experience communicates the presence of Christ through the
$pirit. Baptism and the ho rd s $upper are described prim arily
Hofmann does not appear to have as antitypes of the types of circumcision and the ?assover, rites
rejected the Lutheran doctrine / connected with com m unal membership in Israel. The New
Testaments characterization of the sacraments as unity with
the realpresence.
C hrists historic existence that is, baptism as dying and rising
with Christ as in Romans 6; the ho rd s $upper as the reception
of his sacrificed body and blood as indicated by the words of
institution are decidedly missing.
This being said, it should of course be observed that H0T From this two things are clear. First, H ofm ann views partici-
m ann does often speak ofth e glorification of Christ, that is, the pation in the historic continuity of the church com m unity to
return of his glorious attributes to his divine nature upon his be salvific. Hrerefore, for him, the sacraments prim arily func-
ascension, and his continuing presence w ithin the C hristian tion as a means of sealing a person w ithin the church and its
community.79 Nevertheless, in m any of his writings he identi- collective redemptive fellowship with God. This is clear from
fies such a presence solely w ith the Holy $pirit as a surrogate his understanding of the sacraments as being chiefly parallels
for Christ in a m anner somewhat rem iniscent o fth e Reformed for rites that perform ed that task in ancient Israel. $econdly, in
tradition that he views God as lim ited by time and Christ as limited by
the ontological distance between heaven and earth, Christians
But in order for [Jesus] to im part the life of his $pirit to his are united with C hrists historical existence through the sac-
members, he had to leave the world and go to the Father, ram ents only in the sense that they come to participate in the
and thereby exchange the limits of the im m anent life for com m unal situation of grace that was brought about by Christ.
the com m union of the transcendent life of the Father: the Not only did H ofm ann hold that the second person of the
outpouring ofth e $pirit was the expansion ofthe transcen- Trinity was changed through the incarnation, but also, much
dence which he had entered.80 like $chelling and Hegel, he sees history as the arena w ithin
which the whole Godhead evolves. C ontrary to the tendency of
H ofm ann does not indicate in any of his statem ents that he be- traditional C hristian theology, H ofm ann argues that anthro-
lieves that G ods glory has been hypostatically com m unicated pom orphic expressions found in the Bible
to C hrists hum an nature, even in the state of exaltation 81
In light of this, M atthew Becker correctly observes that cannot be reduced to expressions of the eternal unchange-
H ofm ann does not accept the traditional Lutheran belief in ableness of God. For the result of such reasoning is that
the absolute omnipresence of C hrists hum an nature: C hrists the diversity of G ods inner life and His dealings with this
presence is not ubiquitous: His Lordship over the world is only world no less than the diversity or the successive character
gradually spreading through the im m anent $pirit through the of that which takes place in Him, would disappear in His
Church. A lthough H ofm ann does not appear to have re- eternal self-identity.
jected the Lutheran doctrine of the real presence, statements
such as the ones cited above suggest that he m ight have viewed We m ust therefore recognize that there is a history of a recip-
the real presence as being m ediated by way of the agency of the rocal interchange of life and m utual relation between God and
Holy $pirit, much like the Roman Catholic and Eastern O rtho- m ankind , and thus an historical nature of God which is no less
dox traditions. Nevertheless it should be cautioned that the evident than His eternal self-identity.91
role ofth e $pirit in this regard is not entirely clear and therefore According to H ofm ann, although the divine relationships
C hrists substantial presence in the Lords $upper may simply in the Trinity certainly do exist transcendently, they neverthe
represent an inconsistency in his system.

85. See L u m e n G e n tiu m , 1, in T he B a sic S ix te e n D o c u m e n ts o fV a tic a n I I , e d . A u s tin

79. H o f m a n n , In te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 30.
80. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 1st e d ., 1:16 q u o te d in B eeker, T he S e lf-G iv in g
G o d , 194.
81. D e s p ite h is s e rio u s pr blem s, ^ o m a s i u s a t le a s t h e ld th a t fo e th e a n d r ie p e r s o n
o f C h r is t w as p r e s e n t w ith th e c h u r c h o n e a r t h . M o re o v e r, th e g e n u s m a je s ta ti-
c u m w as o p e ra tiv e in th e s ta te o f e x a lta tio n . See ^ o m a s i u s , C h r is ti P e rso n u n d
W e r k , 1:331.
82. B ecker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od, 194.
83. I b id ., 209.
84. See h ist ry a n d d e s c rip tfo n in J o h n M c K e n n a , T he E u c h a ristie E piclesis: A D e-
ta ile d H is to r y fr o m th e P a tristic to th e M o d e r n E ra (C h ic ag o : L itu r g y T r a in in g
P u b lic a tfo n s , 2008).
F la n n e r y (N G rth p G rt, N Y: CGstell P u b lis h in g , 1996), 1-10.
86. B eek er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 206.
87. I b id . O f e urse, the l gieally th e N e w T e s ta m e n t a u th o r s ag re e th a t th e sa e ra -
m e n ts a re a n tity p e s in th is fa s h io n , as se e n fo r e x a m p le i n C o lo s s ia n s 2:11-12
a n d Jesu s in s titu ti n f th e L o r d s S u p p e r in th e m id s t o f P asso v e r. N e v e r th e -
le ss, th e y a re nt e x e lu siv ely so, a n d s u e h a th e m e is re la tiv e ly m in o r th r o u g h -
o u t th e B ible.
88. S ee, fo r e x a m p le , F r ie d r ic h S c h e llin g , The A g e s o ft h e W o r ld , tr a n s . Ja s o n W i r th
(A lb an y : S tate U n iv e r s ity f N e w Y o r k P r e s s , 2 0 0 0 ).
89. See fo e a fo re m e n ti n e d H eg el, P h e n o m e n o lo g y .
9 0 . H o f m a n n , I n te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 48.
91. I b id ., 4 8 -4 9 .
h e : l s g e s c h :c h t e a n d a t o n e m e n t
less also develop through the historical process of salvation.
He writes:
[God is] that com m unity of Eather and the Son in the
Spirit, as it represents itself in the Heilsgeschichte, i.e., the
Father is the one [who is] always prior, the Son is the one
[who is] always coming, the Spirit is the one [who is] al-
ways present. In other words, the Father is the one [who is]
always acting upon the world, the Spirit is the one [who is]
always acting in the world, the Son is the one [who is] let-
ting him self act in the world.9
^ e re fo re , states H ofm ann, the Bible speaks only of the eter-
nal relationships in God as historical, and . . . the Bible does
not designate this relationship as an eternal relationship but
as an historical relationship, and apart from [this historical
relationship] a person does not have the right to tu rn the rep-
resentations of the [historical] directly into r ^ e s e n ta tio n s of
the eternal.93
H ofm ann therefore seems in part to anticipate Karl Rahners
later principle of the absolute identity of the im m anent and
economic Trinities.* In time, God does express who he is in
eternity by working out his purpose of love and the internal
Trinitarian relationships. Nevertheless, it m ust also be said
that by entering into tim e G ods being takes upon itself a new
character as it evolves through its struggle to establish a uni-
versal com m unity of love. In this, H ofm ann rejects the historic
C hristian doctrine of divine im m utability in favor of G erm an
Idealisms belief in divine m utability and self-development by
m eans of the historical process. By this process, G ods eventual
goal is to draw the church, which he has established, into his
own fully developed life of triune love. Therefore by entering
into the historical process and allowing him self to be affected
by it, the triune God descends into a sort of kenosis with a re-
demptive goal. Through this divine kenosis, creation comes to
recognize that God [is] the im m anent ground of life, and God
[is] the archetypal goal of the world.96
In anticipation of our discussion of atonement in the next
section, the reader should observe two things about H ofm anns
insistence on the principle of divine evolution through salva-
tion history. Eirst, m uch like his treatm ent of Christology, the
kenosis and evolution of God through the historical process
suggest that the infinite God is incapable of entering into the
finitude of the world w ithout m odifying the fullness of his glory
in some way. In this, the Lutheran capax is again implicitly re-
jected. Earlier orthodox Lutheran theologians accepted along
with the tradition of the ancient and medieval church that
although God was infinite and immutable, he was, in some
92. C h r is to p h L u th a r d t, A u s j. C h r. K . H o f m a n n s V o rle s u n g b e r D o g m a tik ,
Z e it s c h r i ftf r kirc h lic h e W is s e n s c h a ft u n d kirc h lic h es L e b e n ro (1889): 51 q u o t-
e d in B eeker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G od 4 4,
93 H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 2 n d e d ., 1:206 q u o te d in B ecker, The S e lf-G iv in g
G o45
d ,
94 See K a rl R a h n e r, T he T r in ity (L o n d o n : C o n tin u u m , 1986), 21-24.
95. B e c k e rs c h a ra c te riz a ti n (see B ecker, T he S e lf-G iv in g G o d73
96. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 2 n d e d ., 1:37 q u o te d in B ecker, The S e lf-G iv in g
G o4d4,
21
mysterious sense, able to aet w ithin the world without eompro-
mising his ehangelessness or his other glorious attributes. By
eontrast, H ofm ann does not appear eonfident in this faet and,
therefore, m ust abandon traditional metaphysies in favor of a
new aeeount of the divine being.
Hofmann holds that God can simply
displace his relationship ofwrath
by simply evolvingpast it.
$eeondly, it should be observed that divine evolution means
that through the eourse of salvation history God moves past
eertain stages in his reality and on to new ones. Therefore,
aeeording to Hofm ann, the eharaeter of the God of the New
Testament era is not absolutely identieal w ith that of the Old.
Onee a new dispensation has been reaehed, the old character
of the deity is modified and a new one emerges. To qualify
this, it should, of course, be observed that H o f m a n n held that
G ods Trinitarian identity and purpose, that is, the creation of
the universal com m unity of love, did not ultimately change.
Nevertheless, as we will see in the next section dealing with
atonement, H ofm ann holds that God can simply displace his
relationship ofw rath found in the Old Testament era by simply
evolving past it in his choice to actualize him self as exclusively
a God of love in the person of Jesus.
H O FM ANNS DOGTRINE OF A T O N E M E N T
In this section we will complete our discussion of H ofm anns
theology with a review of his theory of atonement. Hofm ann
began to express his discom fort publicly with the confessional
Lutheran teaching regarding U s titu tio n a ry atonement to-
ward the end of his first period at Erlangen in r842.9s Later,
upon his return in 1845, he would become embroiled in a debate
on the subject with a num ber of his Erlangen colleagues, nota-
bly Thom asius" and Theodosius Harnack,100 as well as other
theologians including E. A. ?hilippi,1 the exhaustive details of
which are beyond the bounds of our present study .
In his lectures of 1842, H ofm ann claimed that the orthodox
Eutheran doctrine of atonement dissolved the concrete histori-
97. See sev eral e x a m p le s in S e h m id , D o c tr in a l T h eo lo g y, 129-35,189-213.
98. FD rde, The L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te , 36-37.
99. G ttfrie d ^ m a s iu s . D a s B e k e n n tn is s d er lu th e r is c h e n K irc h e v o n d e r V ers h -
n u n g u n d d ie V ers h n u n g sleh re D. Chr. . V. H o fm a n n s (E rla n g e n : T e o d o r
B l sin g , 1857).
1 ^ e d s iu s H a r n a c k , L u th e r s T heo lo g ie m it b e so n d erer B e z ie h u n g a u f sein e
V e rs h n u n g s- u n d E rl su n g sleh re, 2 vls. (A m s te rd a m : Rdpi, 1969). ^ e o d o -
siu s H a r n a c k s s tu d y f L u th e r a n d h is d isc very o f th e d ctrin e o f th e h id d e n
G o d w e re resp n ses t H o f m a n n s th e o lo g y a n d h is in te r p r e ta tio n o f L u th e r.
101. F. A . P h ilip p i, H e r r Dr. v o n H o fm a n n g e g e n b e r lu th e r is c h e n V e rs h n u n g s-
,(
2
3 u n d R e c h tfe rtig u n g s le h r e (E rlangen: T h eo d o r B l sin g , 1856).
102. See s u m m a r y in B eck er, T he S e lf-G iv in g G o d , 1 9 4 -2 0 3 F o rd e , T he L a w -G o sp el
D e b a te , 1 2 -7 8 H e in , L u th e r is c h e s B e k e n n tn is , 254-71.
22
cal life and death of Jesus into an abstract doctrine foreign to
the Bible.*03 It did not represent the logic of the Scripture, but
rather represented an alien concept of justice, wherein God
gives everyone what they deserve.*01 It assumes a quantitative
understanding of justice and its restoration, that is, infinite
death repairs the infinite debt of sin.*0 In light of these diffi-
culties, the view of atonement found in the Eutheran symbolic
writings and later Lrotestant scholastic theologians needed to
be completely revised and reformulated. H ofm ann believed
that this particular task had fallen to him .106
According to Hofmann, sacrifice did
not represent a paym ent fo r sin, but
rather signified Gods gracious pledge.
H ofm anns m ature atonem ent theology coheres perfectly
w ith his understanding of Heilsgeschichte. As we have previ-
ously observed, H ofm ann held that salvation history was a
process wherein God worked to evolve an increasingly inclu-
sive universal com m unity to share in the loving com m union
of his T rinitarian life. Lor Hofm ann, G ods m ost prim al and
eternal wifi was to establish a relationship of love w ith hum an-
ity. Divine w rath entails a negative relationship of alienation
from God and, therefore, it is not as prim al as his love: [Gods]
w rath is not som ething eternal, but a historic relationship /
God.107 Because fallen hum anity is alienated from G ods love,
it necessarily enters into a state of revolt when confronted by
divine grace. H istorically this revolt has found its expression
in the persecution and m artyrdom of those who represent
God and his plan for hum anity, that is, the prophets of the Old
Testament. C hrists death was therefore the culm ination of
salvation history in that he was the supreme m artyr among a
succession of m artyrs beginning w ith Abel.*0
In the Old Testament period, G ods sending of prophets and
other holy people to be m artyred was intended to reveal two
m ain things. First, as previously noted, it revealed that G ods
gracious will of love rem ained ever present in spite of hum an
resistance. Nevertheless it also functioned as a m eans ofreveal-
ing the sin of those who perpetrated such violence. Recogniz-
ing their sinful actions against those who were G ods servants,
the evil of the unrighteous would exhaust itself in the death of
13. FG rde, The L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te y 36-37.
4
1 Ib id ., 37.
5
1 Ib id ., 38.
6
1 FG rde h e lp fu lly d ire e ts u s to P a u l W a p ler, H ie G e n e s is d e r V e rs h n u n g s le h re
H o f m a n n s , N e u e K irch lich e Z e its c h r ift2 5 (1914): 167-203. There is a n a p p e n d ix
w ith s o m e o f t h e a b o ve m e n tio n e d le ctu res in c lu d ed .
r07. J o h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , T heologische E th ik (N rd lin g e n : C . H . B eek , 1878), 35
e m p h a s is a d d e d tr a n s la tio n m y o w n .
108. H o f m a n n , D e r S ch riftb ew e is, 1st ed., 2.1:115-40.
LOGIA
the m artyrs and thereby bring about repentance and a desire
to do the good.109
H ofm ann attempted to expand his idea of m artyrdom as a
m eans of subjective m oral influence to the biblical practice of
sacrifice as well. According to Hofm ann, sacrifice did not rep-
resent a payment for sin, but rather signified G ods gracious
pledge of him self to humanity. In m any of the sacrifices prac-
ticed by the patriarchs, the killing of the anim al in the sacrifi-
cial ritual reaffirmed hum an dom inion over creation, given in
Genesis r and reaffirmed by anim al sacrifice after the flood in
Genesis 110. Similarly, Leviticus spoke of sacrifices of atone-
m ent covering the sinner through the blood of the animal.
H ofm ann interpreted this to m ean that through engaging in
the sacrifice, one publicly witnessed to the fact that he had
received the reconciliation offered to him self by God.111 Lor
this reason, sacrifice did not actually pay for sins, but publicly
confronted people wiffi their sin while at the same time giving
them a visible sign of divine love and grace.
In turning to the death of Christ, H ofm ann also sought to
reinterpret statements made by the New Testament authors re-
garding its U s titu tio n a ry nature and redemptive significance.
W hen discussing Lauls statement in r Corinthians 5:7 that
Christ our Lassover is sacrificed for us, H ofm ann argued that
this should in no way be understood as suggesting substitution-
ary atonement:
The self-offering of Jesus unto death corresponds to the
inceptive enabling of redem ption for the New Testament
congregation. On this basis, nothing should be taught
regarding an atoning power of the death of Jesus. . . . Lor
those to whom he [Laul] was w riting it needed only to be
know n that the enabling of the new fellowship between
God and m ankind, which first took place between God
a n d Is ra e l, was fulfilled in the death of the mediator.112
Elsewhere, H ofm ann interprets Lauls statement in 2 Corin-
thians 5:14 that Christ died for all as being merely for the good
of all.113 W hen discussing the apostles assertion that if righ-
teousness came by the works of the law, Christ would have died
in vain (Gal 2:21), H ofm ann states that here the apostle merely
m eans that salvation comes through the fellowship with God
established by C hrists death, rather than legalistic deeds. 1
Overall, when faced w ith the extremely difficult task of re-
interpreting Lauls statements regarding atonement, H ofm ann
argues that all scriptural passages that attach salvific signifi-
cance to C hrists death m ust be understood as referring to its
subjective m oral effect, rather than to its role as an objective
payment for sin. As we have seen before, this is determ ined by
109. Ib id ., 2.1:139.
110. Ib id ., 2.1:14330.
111. Ib id .,1:1
4
2 See s u m m a r y in F o rd e , T he L a w - G ospel D e b a te , 41-43.
112. H o f m a n n , D e r Schriftbew eiSy 2 n d e d ., 2.1:323 q u o te d in G re e n , The E rla n g e n
S ch o o l, 123.
113. H o f m a n n , D e r Schriftbew eiSy 2 n d e d ., 2.1:323.
114. Ib id ., 2.1.331. See e o m m e n ta r y a n d d is e u s s io n o f th e s e p as s a g e s in G re e n , The
E r la n g e n Schooly 123-24.
h e : l s g e s c h :c h t e a n d a t o n e m e n t
several aspects of H ofm anns thought. First, there is a rejec-
tion of the idea of punitive wrath. O f course, H ofm ann did be-
lieve that sin created the objective reality of alienation between
God and hum ans. Nevertheless, H ofm ann prim arily sees such
alienation in relational terms, rather than in punitive and legal
ones. If God wishes to change his relationship w ith hum ans, he
need only reverse the situation by coaxing hum ans out of their
alienation, rather than objectively paying a debt that they owe.
$econdly, in keeping w ith this first point, since for Hofm ann
God is mutable, he is capable of simply m oving past his previ-
ously negative relationship w ith hum anity and creating a new
one by an act of fiat. By contrast, a beliefin lex aeterna, or eter-
nal law, was part of the assumptions underlining the ortho-
dox Lutheran teaching regarding atonem ent.33 For example,
J o h a n n Baier s t a t e d .
By the Taw is understood the eternal and immutable wis-
dom and decision of God concerning those things which
belong or do not belong to the rational creature, as such,
united w ith His will, that they may or may not be done.
$ince God is eternal, he possesses an eternal statutory will that
is identical w ith the com m andm ents that he reveals through
nature and the supernatural revelation of $cripture. God can-
not deny him self (2 Tim 2:13) and, therefore, reconciliation
m ust involve not simply a movement towards sinful hum anity
in grace, but also the fulfillment of his punitive justice in the
form of the substititionary death of Christ. For H ofm ann, the
mutable God can simply abandon his old alienated relationship
with hum ans and evolve 0 a new relationship of grace, irre-
spective ofw hether the law is fulfilled or not.
In turning to the exact details of H ofm anns atonement
doctrine, we see that all of the aforementioned theological as-
sum ptions are operative. Much like the Old Testament proph-
ets before him, C hrist entered 0 creation as a revelation of
G ods eternal love and desire for com m unal fellowship. As a
result, Jesus suffered opposition from the fallen creation in its
most extreme form.33In this, Christ not only suffered opposi-
tion from sinful hum anity, but also from $atan and the other
forces of darkness. In their fallen state, hum ans had become
ensnared in the devils power. For this reason, Christ m ust not
only conquer hum an sin, but also the power of $atan and his
m inions.3 Because God the $on identified with those suffer-
ing from the extreme alienation of sin, it m ight even be said in
this sense that Christ also suffered the w rath of God.323 In spite
of this extreme alienation and opposition from the dark forces
of the old creation, Jesus is trium phant, and, therefore once and
115. See s u m m a r y in F o rd e , The L a w - G ospel D e b a te , 3 -9 .
116. See S e h m id , D o c tr in a l T heology, 232
117. F o rd e , The L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te , 3 - 9 S c h m id , D o c tr in a l T heology, 3 4 2 -7 0 .
118. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is, 2 n d e d ., 1 :4 0 -4 2 .
119. J o h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , E n c y c lo p d ie d e r Theologie: n a c h V o rle su n g e n u n d
M a n u s c r ip te n hera u sg eg eb en v o n H . }. B e s tm a n n (N rd lin g e n : C . H . B eck,
120. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is, 2 n d e d . , 1 : 4 4 1 - .
121. Ib id ., 1:47.
23
for all, G ods reality was aetualized as loving for humanity. U 1-
timately then, Christ did not effeet an objective transaction,
fulfillment of an abstract dem and according to the scheme of
forensic justice [that is, U s titu tio n a r y atonement] but a his-
torically new creation.1
As we have previously observed in our discussion of Hof-
m an n s Christology, by the power of his resurrection and his
sending of the Holy $pirit, C hrist brings about a com m unity
of love, in this com m unity, the relationship that the Father
possesses w ith the $on becomes available to those who par-
ticipate in it.123 This m eans that the purpose of C hrists death
is the actualization of a new historical situation in the life of
the people of God. in light of this fact, it should be noted that
H ofm anns description of Jesus as a figure who suffers perse-
cution in order to move along hum an com m unal progress is
not unlike the Romantic idea of the artistic or scientific ge-
nius often called a Rrom ethean figure who suffers to drive
forw ard hum an civilization.3^
For Hofmann, the mutable God can
simply abandon his old alienated
relationship with humans.
Such an account of the work of Christ also has some inter-
esting effects on H ofm anns understanding of the distinction
between law and gospel, as well as the nature of the C hristian
life. C ontrary to the teaching of orthodox Lutheran theology,32
H ofm ann does not regard the law and gospel as two distinct
words through which God acts on his creatures in the present
age. Rather, because the divine being has developed w ithin his-
tory, the law and the gospel are seen as distinctive life forms
appropriate to the people of God w ithin the respective Old and
New Testament periods.
The first stage of Heilsgeschichte was the Old Testament
dispensation of law. God called Israel and formed its distinc-
tive national life on the basis of the law.3 Though the law and
its legalistic works did not affect reconciliation between God
and hum ans, it did helpfully point ahead to the final recon-
ciliation in C h r i s t . 3 W hereas in the Old Testament era hu-
m an beings entered into fellowship with God by adhering to
7 q u G ted in FD rde, T he L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te , 4 6 -4 7 .
122. Ib id ., 2.1:
123. H o f m a n n , D e r S c h r iftb e w e is , 1st e d ., 1:45.
124. G e r a ld G illesp ie, P ro m e th e u s i n th e R o m a n tie A g e, in E u r o p e a n R o m a n ti-
cism : L ite r a r y C ro ss-C u rre n ts, M o d e s , a n d M o d e ls, e d . G e r h a r t H o ffm e iste r
(D e tro it: W a y n e S ta te U n iv e rs ity P re s s , 1990), 197-210.
125. See th e e la ssie a l e x p re s s io n in C . F. w . W a lth e r, L a w a n d G o sp el, tr a n s . H e r -
b e r t ]. A . B o u m a n (St. L o u is: C o n e o r d ia P u b lis h in g H o u se , 1981). A ls o see th e
in s ig h tf u l, y e t in so m e w ay s less o rth o d o x , tr e a tm e n t in W e rn e r E le rt, L a w a n d
G o sp el, tr a n s . E d w a rd S c h ro e d e r (P h ila d e lp h ia : F o r tr e s s P re s s, 1967).
126. H o f m a n n , E n c yclo p d ie d e r T h eo lo g ie, 77 7
127 Ib id ., 7 9 -8 1 .
24
the law, during the present New Testament period Christ has
become the basis of the divine-hum an relationship realized in
the church.128 Unfortunately, Israel made the law an end in it-
splfand therefore failed to understand that the deeds of the law
were only m eant to point to the coming Christ. In this, Israel
slipped into legalism.129
Hofmanns doctrine ofatonem ent
endangered justification by faith
by making the work o fc h rist
prim arily about moral influence.
For this reason, when Paul contrasted law and faith, he meant
merely to oppose legalistic actions to an attitude which is
contrasted with a legalistic outlook.*8 He did not m ean to
contrast two words, one that dem ands and the other that prom-
ises. Rather, the gospel is a new ethos of love, effected by Christ
w ithin the community. To the extent that the C hristian lives
out of his experience of the love o fc h ris t and his sanctification,
the $pirit guides him and he does not need any other w ritten
code: The $pirit of C hrist instructs as to what he [the Chris-
tian] m ust do, and motivates him to do it, and that which he
then does is undeniably correct.*8* For this reason, the ethos
of the gospel now means that the C hristian lives under what
Gerhard Forde refers to as a new internal law.182
Again, as we noted in an earlier part, the problem of the law
and atonem ent are dealt with by H ofm ann by positing that
w ithin the historical process God has simply evolved past these
realities and replaced his negative relationship w ith hum anity
with one of pure love and grace. In that G ods being is mutable
and subject to time, his relationship of w rath has been safely
consigned to the past. In the unifying principle of love, the two
words of law and gospel dissolve into a unitary principle of di-
vine love.188
A BRIEF CRITIQUE A N D CGNSTRUCTIVE
R E SP O N S E TO H O FM ANNS THEOEOGY
In this final section, we will offer a critique and constructive
response to the aspects of H ofm anns theology that we have re-
viewed above. In his own time, H ofm ann was a quite contro-
versial figure, even among his own colleagues at Erlangen. For
128. jQ h a n n e s v o n H o f m a n n , D ie S c h u tz s c h r ifte n f r ein e n e u e W eise, alte W a h r h e it
z u le h re n (N rd lin g e n : C . H . B eck, 1856-1859), 2:95.
129. F o rd e , The L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te , 3 0 -3 2 .
130. H o f m a n n , In te r p r e tin g th e B ib le , 186.
3 . H o f m a n nT, heologische E t h ik , 78 tra n s la tio n m y o w n .
132. F o rd e , The L a w -G o s p e l D e b a te , 33.
133. G r e e n s a n d R o b e rt S c h u ltz s c ritiq u e . See G re e n , T he E r la n g e n Sch o o l, 124.
A ls o see S c h u ltz , G esetz u n d E v a n g e liu m , - .
LOGIA
Thomasius and Theodosius Harnack, as well as F. A. Philippi of
Rostoek, H ofm anns doetrine of atonement endangered justi-
fieation by faith by m aking the work of Christ prim arily about
m oral influence.*8* O ther eritiques of H ofm ann foeused on his
abandonm ent of the Lutheran law-gospel dialectic in favor of
a unitary principle of love. Robert $chultz, and in a somewhat
similar m anner Fredrich Baumgrtel, have made this charge in
their w orksH Lastly, Franz Pieper found what he called H o f
m anns Ichtheologie extremely problematic. For Pieper, H o f
m anns emphasis on religious experience and abandonm ent of
the inerrancy of the Bible made his theology hopelessly sub-
jective. This is the case even though H ofm ann had clearly at-
tempted to anchor the subjectivity of religious consciousness in
the objectivity of history and com m unity^
Though we do not have the space to examine these critiques
of H ofm anns theology in detail, we may say, based on our ear-
lier investigations, that they are in a qualified sense generally
on target. Like m any of his contemporaries, H ofm anns theol-
ogy relies on religious experience to do m uch of the hard lift-
ing of the verification of the truth of C hristian doctrine. This
is, for the m ost part, untem pered by his appeal to history and
community. It is the consciousness of religious experience that
allows the C hristian to judge the veracity of the com m unal his-
tory presented in the $criptures. For this reason, for Hofm ann
the ultimate source of ah authority is hum an religious experi-
ence a n d not the word of God.
$uch a focus on religious experience, as well as H ofm anns
corresponding notion of C hristian conduct being form ed by
a new inner law of the $pirit, smack of what Lutherans have
historically called enthusiasm . In the $malcald Articles, Lu-
ther famously described enthusiasm as tied up with the origin
of all sin (SA, I I I , V I I I ; Triglotta, 495-96). The essence of this
phenom enon is the hum an beings focus on the inner experi-
ence of the Spirit as the basis of our understanding of God and
his w i l l .
Such reliance on our own divinized inner thoughts and feel-
ing is problematic not because it subverts our ability to find a
proper intellectual foundation for our abstract theological proj-
ects. Rather, as for Luther, the chief concern of the theologian is
to break the cycle of self-justification by learning to distinguish
properly law from gospel. Enthusiasm is problematic because it
attem pts to silence G ods objective address to the sinner in law
and gospel. As long as individuals judge themselves by their
inner J f-e s tim a te , then they may see themselves as righteous
a n d in no need of a savior. W hen hum ans move out from their
own self-centered existence and begin to listen to who they are
according to G ods dual address, such self-justification is no
longer possible. According to the law, they have not obeyed
G ods com m andm ents and neither could they ever have.
134. See w o rk s c ite d in fo o tn o te s 99-101.
3 . F r e d r ic h B a u m g rte l,Verh eissu n g : z u r Frage d es eva n g elisch e n V erst n d n isses
des A l te n T e s ta m e n ts (G te rslo h : C . B e r te ls m a n n , 1952). G re e n , T he E r la n g e n
S c h o o l, giv es a s h o r t s u m m a r y o f th e c r itiq u e o n p ag e 118. B a u m g rte l is m a in ly
c o n c e r n e d w ith th e d ia le c tic o f la w a n d g ra c e th r o u g h th e h is to r y o f Is ra e l le a d -
in g to C h r is t.
136. P ie p e r, C h r is tia n D o g m a tic s , 1:6.
h e : l s g e s c h :c h t e a n d a t o n e m e n t
Similarly, according to the gospel and its preaching of the
cross, the hearer comes to recognize the depth of sin, which is
so deep and terrible that the divine Son ofG od has had to suffer
the infinite judgm ent of G ods wrath. Luther writes:
In addition, it follows that our sins are so great, so infinite
a n d invincible, that the whole world could not make satis-
faction for even one of them. C ertainly the greatness ofthe
ransom namely, the blood of the Son of God makes it
sufficiently clear that we can neither make satisfaction for
our sin nor prevail over i t . . . . B ut we should note here the
infinite greatness o fth e price p a id fo r it. Then it WII be evi-
dent that its power is so great that it could not be removed
by any m eans except that the Son of God be given for it.
Anyone who considers this carefully WII understand the
one word sin includes the eternal w rath of God a n d the
entire kingdom of Satan, and that sin is no trifle.^
Tor real justification, we m ust live outside of ourselves in the
person of C hrist through faith. Enthusiasts recoil from these
truths and divinize their own thought and feeling to protect
themselves against it.
In this sense, H ofm anns preference for the Heilsgeschichte
and its verification by religious consciousness may be read as
an attem pt to silence the voice of the law. In order to do this,
H ofm ann rejects G ods punitive justice, despite its ubiquity
in $cripture (Deut 32:41; Rom 2:6; 12:19; 2 Tim 4:14). In H o f
m anns thinking, there is objective divine w rath in the form of
a real alienation w ithin the divine-hum an relationship, but for
him such w rath is safely tucked away in the old dispensation,
tro u g h sin and its negative effects have continued this side of
the m illennial kingdom, the alienation and w rath of God are
divided from the contem porary believer by the gulf of historical
time. In fact, Christ him self is also historically divided from the
believer by the g ulf of history, but this is no matter. Christians
at present may luxuriate in their current interior experience of
divine love as m ediated to them by the historical com m unity
o fth e church. God has, in a sense, gotten over the law and its
condem ning effects.
Nevertheless, this sort of theology does not really solve the
problem of the law. As Paul shows, G ods w rath rem ains ever
present under the thin veil of his creation (Rom 1:18). It is also
present in the word of law that confronts the creature through
the preaching office (Rom 2-3). God is not limited by time and
neither can his WII and presence as law be lim ited to a par-
ticular historical era. Being built hffo the structure ofthe world,
G ods law is pervasive and cannot be escaped; the claim that
it can be avoided by a particular theory about historical de-
velopment is pure illusion.^ This is the fundam ental flaw of
137. A E 26: 33 e m p h a s is a d d e d . Ais see s im ila r e m m en ts i n C h e m n itz , Two
N a tu r e s , 148 a n d D a v id C h y tr a e u s ,A S u m m a r y o f t h e C h r is tia n F a ith (1568),
tr a n s . R ie h a r d D in d a (M a lo n e , Tex.: R e p ristin a ti n P re s s, 2 0 0 0 ), 37-38.
138. G e r h a r d F o rd e , F a k e ^ e o l g y : R efleeti ns o n A n tin m ia n is m P a s t a n d P re s -
e n t, i n T he P rea c h ed God: P r o c la m a tio n in W o rd a n d S a c r a m e n t, e d . M a r k
M a tte s a n d S tev e n P a u ls o n (G ra n d R ap id s: !^. B. E e rd m a n s , 200 7 ), 215. Frde
e o rre e tly w rite s: A n tin o m ia n is m is fak e thelgy. I n o th e r w rds, sin ee th e
5
Heilsgeschichte theology. It seeks to box God and his law into a
a r tic u la r historical era, when this is self-evidently not possible.
The irony of the Heilsgeschichte theology is that in lim iting
God to time and consigning the threat of the law to a different
dispensation, it also shuts up Christ the only true solution to
the problem of the law in the historical past. Nevertheless,
just as God in his glory and power in the law cannot be segre-
gated from hum an existence, neither can the risen Jesus who
participates in the same divine power be boxed out of hum an
existence. Indeed, Christ him self promises to be ever present
with his church because he has received the fullness of divine
glory (Matt 28:19-20). He promises that when the church gath-
ers around his name that is, the means of grace to which his
name is attached his reality will be truly present there with
them (Matt 18:20). In this, those who hear the proclam ation of
grace presented to them in word and sacram ent will also hear
the very voice of Christ through these means: One who hears
you hears me (Luke 10:16). It was Luthers great theological in-
sight that he recognized this fact. Indeed, as Oswald Bayer has
shown, it was the recognition that the word of absolution was
identical with the very presence of Christ justifying the sinner
that finally brought about the so-called Reformation break-
through.1^
Hofmanns preference for the Heilsge-
schichte may he read as an attem pt
to silence the voice ofthe law.
In this we observe that the risen Christ is limited by nei-
ther time nor space and, therefore, may save his people in the
m idst of the old age of sin, death, and the law. This dual pres-
ence of God under the forms of law and gospel determ ines, to
use a Trinitarian metaphor, C hristian existence as one w ithin
the perichoresis of the ages. There is no orderly development
in C hristian existence, as in Heilsgeschichte. Rather, this side
of the final kingdom of glory, there is a continuous dialect-
cal interplay w ithin the individual believer of the realities of
the fall, redemption, and the last judgm ent. Being addressed
by G ods word of law and grace, the believer lives between the
ages, caught up both under the weight of the rotting corpse of
the old creation and the in-breaking ofthe new resurrected life.
According to Bayers interpretation, this tru th finds an impor-
tant expression in the writings of Tuther:
law cannDt be escaped, antinDmianism des nt achieve anything that theol-
gyis suppDsedtD SDlve.
139. O s w a ld B ayer, M a r tin L u th e r s Theology: A C o n te m p o r a r y I n te r p r e ta tio n ,
tr a n s . ^ D m a s T r a p p ( G r a n d R ap id s: W m . B. E e r d m a n s , 2 0 0 8 ), 52-53 O sw a ld
B ayer, P ro m issio : G esch ich te d e r re fo r m a to r is c h e n W e n d e in L u th e r s Theologie
(G ttin g e n : V a n d e n h o e c k & R u p re c h t, 1971), 2 4 0 -4 1 .
26
Luthers apocalyptic understanding of creation and history
opposes m odern concepts of progress. For Luther, the only
progress is retu rn to ones baptism, the biographical point
of rupture between the old and new worlds. Creation, Fall,
redem ption, and completion of the world are not sequen-
tial advance, one after the other, but perceived in an inter-
tw ining of the tim esH
The C hristian lives through Christ, who contains w ithin him-
self the perichoretic unity of the ages. Luther writes: We con-
clmfe. therefore, that a C hristian lives not in himself, but in
Christ and the neighbor. He lives in C hrist through faith, and
in his neighbor through love (AE 31: 371). C hrist is the son of
Adam and takes upon him self the condem nation and sin of
Adam s race (Rom 5; 2 Cor 21 : ).At the same time, C hrist is the
second Adam and the divine $on of the Father, who actualizes
the new age of righteousness by the power of his active obedi-
ence and resurrection (Rom 5; 1 Cor 15; AE 26: 277-78). In that
Christ unites w ithin him self sin and righteousness, death and
life, he prefigures the sitnul of C hristian existencefei
Christ is not bound to time or space,
and, therefore, the saving presence
ofhis one sacrifice may be present
to Christians throughout time.
The C hristians existence in Christ therefore hangs suspend-
ed between the old and new ages. In the waters of baptism the
C hristian is united to C hrists death and resurrection. Even as
the believer daily falls 0 sin, baptized ones may ever return
to the present reality of their baptism through faith (LCIV; Tri-
glotta, 733-43). Indeed, as we have seen, C hrist and the reality of
his life are not constrained to the succession of time, and t h ^ -
fore the C hristian united w ith him through baptism and its
promise lacks this constraint as well. is no need to enter
0 penance in order to repair ones baptism, as in the Roman
Catholic traditionfe^ $uch a concept assumes that the reality
of baptism is separated from the C hristian by an unbridgeable
4 O s w a ld Bayer, M a r ti n L u th e r, i nT he R e fo r m a tio n T heologians: A n In tr o d u c - 143. jG a c h im Je re m ia s , T he E u c h a ristie W o rd s o fj e s u s , tr a n s . N rm an P e r r in (Ln-
tio n to T heology in th e E a r ly M o d e r n P e rio d , e d . C a r t e r L in d b e rg (M a ld e n ,
M ass: B la ck w ell P u b lis h in g , 2 0 0 4 ),2-
1
4 See c m m en t t th is effect in E ric h S eeb e rgL, u th e r s Theologie: M o tiv e u n d
Id e e n (S tu ttg a rt: w . K h lh a m m e r V erlag , 1929-1937), 2:8.
142. See C a te ch ism o f t h e C a th o lic C h u rch (N e w Y ork: c n tin u u m , 2 0 0 6 ), 2 2 4 -2 6 ,
322-31.
LOGIA
gulf of time. Consequently one needs to find alternative means
to aetualize the same redeeming reality in the present.
$imilarly the C hristian has aeeess to forgiveness through
the very presenee of C hrists saerifieed body and blood in the
ho rd s $upper. In the words of institution, Jesus deseribes his
mysterious physieality in the $upper as the presenee of his sae-
rifieed body on the erossd" The essenee of Old Testament sae-
rifice was the separation of body from blood (Lev 17:11) and,
therefore, to speak of ones own substanee as separated (this is
m y body, this is my blood, and so forth) is to speak of them
as som ething saerifieed. Again, C hrist is not bound to time or
spaee, and, therefore, the saving presenee of his one saerifiee
m aybe present to Christians throughout time (Rev 13:8). David
Scaer writes:
W hat men view as historic crucifixion, God views as ever-
lasting sacrificial atonement. W hat God views as eternal
sacrifice, the ehureh reeeives as saerament. $aerifiee and
saeram ent deseribe the same thing but from differ-
ent perspeetives. Crueifixion and atonement are not two
different events, blit one event viewed from two different
perspectives, hum an and divine. The ho rd s $upper is the
presentation of the sacrificial atonement among Christians
at worship . ^ 4
Therefore the act of rem em brance is not remembrance in the
sense of a m nem onic aid, but in the Old Testament sense of
G ods own promise being placed before ones eyes (Exod 2:24).
In that the C hristian orally receives C hrists sacrificed body
and blood and the promises attached to them in the ho rd s $up-
per, they receive the forgiveness of sin and the promise of the
resurrected life that have become actual in C hrists person.
CONCLUSION
Although there is little that the confessional Lutheran can find
theologically useful in the theology of H ofm ann, his thought is
extremely interesting and rich and, therefore, wonderful food
for thought. His life and works are a fascinating blend of sever-
al intellectual currents in nineteenth-century Germany R0-
manticism, P i e t i s m - Germ an Idealism, N ^ L i i t h p r a m ' s m . a n d
so forth. Moreover, the theological errors in H ofm anns thought
serve as a proper catalyst for enabling confessional Lutherans to
clarify their own principles. As we have seen, this is particularly
true with regard to the Lutheran com m itm ent to the tru th of
the gospel and the promise of C hrists saving presence in word
dn: S C M P re s s, 1966), 222. J e re m ia s w rite s t h a t Jesu s is a p p ly in g t H im -
s e lf te r m s fr m th e la n g u a g e f s a c r if ic e .. . . E a c h f th e tw n u n s [body a n d
b lo o d ] p resu p p se a slay in g th a t h a s s e p a r a te d fle sh a n d bld. I n ther wrds:
Jesu s sp e a k s f h im s e lf as a sacrifice.
144. D a v id S caer, B a p tis m a n d th e L rds S u p p e r in th e L ife o f th e C h u r c h , C o n -
co rd ia T h eo lo g ica l Q u a rte r ly 45 (1981): 48.


Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.

No eontent 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 eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e 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 covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa 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 initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).

The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.