Contemporary Culture
Testament of Vision, by Henry Zylstra, Eerdmans, 1958, 234 pp., $3.50.
The product of an orthodox Christian who can think and also write, this book is a pure delight. Here is writing which speaks modestly but with great sincerity and keen perception on contemporary education, literature, religion, and life generally. Are you bothered about the shortcomings of Christian fiction? The reason, says Dr. Zylstra, is that orthodoxy is at bay against modern culture and consequently this sort of writing emerges from outside, not inside, our culture and therefore is unrelated to the structure of life and reality. Genuine fiction, says he, is free from posturing, mere contrivance, and evasion. Because they show a willingness and an authenticity in exploring the fundamental issues of life, a Christian ought not to be afraid of Hardy, Kafka, Joyce, Hemingway, and Camus, because “there is more of you, after reading Hardy, to be Christian with than there was before you read him.” Christian novelists, on the other hand, are likely to substitute propaganda for witness, and in all propaganda “the soul of the free self” turns up missing.
Dr. Zylstra makes an analogous criticism of Christian education, and, in general, the orthodox way of thought. He cites Matthew Arnold’s comment on the English Nonconformists of the nineteenth century: “He has worshipped the fetish of separatism so long that he is likely to wish to remain, like Ephraim, ‘a wild ass alone by himself,’ ” and declares that as important as it is for orthodox Christians to maintain their identity through a species of isolation, they must not allow isolation to impoverish and cut them off from the resources of mankind. It is only as human beings that we are Christians and an undue isolation leaves us inhuman and consequently ineffective.
In the current debate on what both public and private schools should teach, Dr. Zylstra has no uncertain opinion. He emphatically favors formal discipline, and he traces the logic of his belief back to the Logos and the rational nature of man. He holds with Robert Maynard Hutchins to a hierarchy of values in subjects to be taught and therefore comes into radical disagreement with John Dewey that such subjects as “dancing, dramatics, and doll dressing” are as valuable as Greek, Latin, and mathematics.
This book ought to be read by every Christian who cares to think seriously about orthodoxy. Not often has so much keenness of perception, so much simple honesty of mind and clear expression gone into a single volume.
CLYDE S. KILBY
Humanist Approach
American Freedom and Catholic Power, 1958, by Paul Blanshard, Beacon Press, 1958. 395 pp., $3.95.
This work appeared first on the market just ten years ago. At that time it faced a concentrated attack by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, an attack which for a time was so successful that many American bookstores would not display it on their counters lest they be boycotted by Roman Catholics. In the long run, as usual, this helped the book’s sale and today it reappears enlarged and revised.
In his preface to this new edition, the author has outlined what has happened since 1948 in the field of Roman Catholic activities on this continent. He points out in general that during the past 10 years the Roman hierarchy has not really succeeded in extending or in enforcing its plans more effectively. Indeed in some spheres, such as those relating to censorship, the church has been forced to curtail its demands. Nevertheless, as he states more than once, this does not mean that the Roman church has really changed its point of view. Ten years form a very short period in the history of the church of Rome.
Perhaps because of the proposal for one of the major parties in the United States to nominate a Roman Catholic for the next presidential election, Blanshard now introduces for the first time a certain amount of material on the subject of Al Smith’s political campaign, and adds a short discussion of the question of an American ambassador to the Vatican. Probably even more important is his attempt to deal with the biblical basis of papal claims.
It is the last mentioned addition to this new issue of the book that highlights its basic weakness. Blanshard, who is obviously a thoroughgoing humanist, stresses throughout the book the fact that it is impossible to separate Roman Catholic action from Roman Catholic doctrine. At the same time, with the exception of his rather inadequate study of the Romanists’ interpretation of Matthew 16:18, he never deals with their religious teachings. His whole attack is upon Romanism’s social and political action. To the present reviewer, if one confines himself to this approach it cannot but lead to what Blanshard does not want: political intolerance and legal restraints upon Roman Catholics.
Any convinced Protestant will quickly realize that this humanist approach will not solve the problem. Indeed he will recognize that in many cases humanists’ conceptions are themselves faulty. For instance, it is impossible to have an absolute separation of State and Church when one is both a Christian and a citizen of a state. Thus, while it is necessary to expose, as Blanshard does, the political and social operations of the Roman church, the only real solution is a new Reformation. Only as men are brought back to a renewed understanding of the grace of God in Christ Jesus, and only as this doctrine once more becomes more widely spread and accepted will the Catholic threat to American freedom be curtailed.
W. STANFORD REID
Weakened Evangelicalism
A Companion to the Bible, edited by J. J. Von Allmen, Oxford, 1958. 480 pp., $6.00.
This volume of 479 double-column pages is a dictionary of the theological terms and concepts of the Bible. The work of 37 Swiss and French Protestant scholars, it was originally published in French in 1954 under the title Vocabulaier Biblique. A second French edition followed in 1956, from which the present English edition was translated. The work is not a Bible dictionary in the usual sense, for it does not undertake to provide geographical, historical or biographical information concerning places and persons, though there are some exceptions to this: an article on Names (Geographical) and one on Names (Personal) discuss the theological significance of a few places and persons.
The erudition of the authors is evident throughout the book. The reader will find here no crude theological blunders, no amateurish superficiality. The waiters are thoroughly at home in their fields, and their writing shows the careful clarity and precision which are characteristic of French style. From the technical point of view this book is a first-class production.
It is perhaps unavoidable that in a composite work by nearly 40 scholars there should be some differences of view point. In spite of individual differences, the general theological viewpoint is that of an evangelicalism considerably weakened by concessions to liberalism. Because of this liberal taint, those who need a book of this type the most will be in danger of being misled by it; on the other hand, those readers who are able to read it with due critical discernment will profit least by using it, just because they are already familiar with the main contents.
Of basic importance in any theological work is the view of Scripture held by the author or authors. The article on Scripture in this volume assumes the general historical trustworthiness of the Bible, but nowhere asserts its inerrancy or infallibility. It is stated that Jesus and the earliest Christians held the same view of the Old Testament as was held by their Jewash contemporaries, namely that “it was the sole authority for religious doctrine and practice” (p. 387). It is stated that “The O. T. canon had not been finally fixed by the time of Jesus” (ibid.). The same article adds that the Jewish doctrine of the inspiration of the O. T. “was apparently adopted by … the first Christians without reservation” (ibid.).
The divisive “higher critical” theory of the Pentateuch is accepted, at least by some of the authors of this work. In the preface the following paragraph appears: “Yahwist, Elohist: these terms denote the oldest literary sources of the early books of the O. T. It is known of course that these books as we read them today constitute a sort of puzzle, the several parts of which have been provided by at least four main sources (to the two sources mentioned must be added the so-called deuteronomic and priestly sources). The designation of the two sources in question by the terms of Yahwist and Elohist is derived from the name by which they refer to God, i.e., Yahweh or Elohim.”
This critical viewpoint is manifested here and there in the body of the book. For example, it is stated that: “The deuteronomic code (Deut. 12 to 26) is already much more developed than the preceding laws and seems to have been inspired by the spirit of the first great prophets … Leviticus is a collection of laws of which the principal part is sometimes called the code of holiness … Its redaction is without doubt less ancient than that of the other legislative texts of the O. T.…” (p. 227).
The concessiveness toward liberalism appears also in the treatment of the early chapters of Genesis. It is affirmed that “The Bible contains two accounts of the creation of different origin and of different date” (p. 71; cf. p. 249, column 2). The garden of Eden is referred to as a “myth” (p. 72), and we read that the creation of Eve from the side of Adam is a “myth … designed to explain the particular physical characteristics of the male and female …” (p. 250).
The book contains no article on Atonement, but this subject is discussed in the articles on Reconciliation and Ransom. On p. 353 the substitutionary doctrine of the atonement seems to be set forth, but on page 350 language is used which, while not perfectly clear, seems rather to favor the governmental theory of the atonement: “It is clear that Jesus will pay this ransom to no one but God, whose holy and righteous anger weighs on sinners. Jesus does not tell us why God requires of Him just this: He simply indicates the meaning of His death without telling us why it must be so. It would be useless to seek an explanation of this mystery in the speculations of mediaeval theology on the nature of God (e.g. the relation between His mercy and justice, and the offence to His honour which required satisfaction) … Jesus declared to sinners the forgiveness of God. But if He was not to cause them to minimize the gravity of sin and to blunt their sense of the divine demand, He must at the same time give them proof of His own utter loyalty to the will of the holy God to whom the sinner is odious and who perforce pronounces on him the sentence of death.”
On p. 375 the plenary ability of the sinner to believe the Gospel is affirmed. On p. 408 the doctrine of original guilt is said to be not implied by Paul’s doctrine of sin. On p. 400 we are told that “It seems probable … that … the Servant of the Lord” in Isaiah 53 “is a fluid conception passing readily from the collective to the individual life, or from the present to the future, and that we should not expect it to show the rigorous logic which the modern mind requires.”
The writer adds that “Jesus Christ saw in these passages the description of His own mission” and that “from the point of view of the Christian Church” Isaiah 53 is “the prophetic foreshadowing of Christ crucified for the salvation of the world.” This seems a perilous attempt to hold a middle ground between the liberal and the orthodox interpretations of Isaiah 53. When the Ethiopian eunuch asked the evangelist Philip, “Of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?” (Acts 8:34), Philip had nothing to say about a “fluid conception passing readily from the collective to the individual life.” He “opened his mouth, and began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus” (vs. 35).
In spite of its great learning and many worthy features, this book is recommended only to readers possessing enough theological knowledge to enable them to discern its unsound tendencies. For well-grounded ministers and teachers it has considerable value. For laymen without theological training it will prove an unreliable guide.
JOHANNES G. VOS
The Christian Hope
Immortality of the Soul, or Resurrection of the Dead?, by Oscar Cullmann, Macmillan 1958, 60 pp., $1.25.
This booklet is the Ingersoll Lecture on Immortality which Dr. Cullmann delivered at Harvard University for the academic year 1954–55. It stands in diametric opposition to the Ingersoll Lecture which Dr. H. E. Fosdick delivered the year 1926–27. That one was a resurrection of Plato’s Phaedo; this has placed the Christian hope in direct antithesis to the Hellenic doctrine. Socrates and the Emperor Julian died meditating upon the worth of the human soul; Stephen and Paul died with their eyes focused upon Jesus who died for their sins and rose for their justification.
Among older writers, Stuart Robinson carefully distinguished between the doctrine of the future life as set forth by the philosophers and the doctrine as taught by the Gospel (Discourses on Redemption, 1866). Among recent writers Nygren’s Agape and Eros and T. A. Kantonen’s The Christian Hope are in about the same line.
For Socrates, death is the friend of the soul; for Paul, death is its last enemy. To the former, the body is the soul’s prison; to the latter, it is the temple of the Holy Spirit. For the one, man’s eternal state begins at death; for the other, it begins at the parousia. Christ invaded the domains of death despite its terrors, and by dying he conquered it and all the enemies of God. His resurrection body and his spirit in the hearts of believers are the firstfruits of the final resurrection at his coming. Between death and this second advent, believers are in special proximity to Christ but are not in their final state. Every item of hope, the easing of death, the assurance of going to be with Christ, the resurrection of our bodies comes not out of the worth of the soul, but from Christ, his death for us, his resurrection as our representative.
If one be so bold as to differ with such a distinguished scholar as Dr. Cullmann, it would be in his conception of the spiritual body. The lecturer begins with the flesh and the spirit as opposing forces working in the human life, and ends with them as the respective substances of the present and of the future bodies. But to the reviewer’s mind, the spiritual body is a body raised and controlled by the Holy Spirit even as the present natural or physical body is controlled by our sinful, fallen psychology, or “the flesh.” The adjective “spiritual” does not describe the substance or composition of the resurrection body. In the resurrection our bodies will be fully under the control of the Holy Spirit as was Jesus’ during his ministry. They will inhabit not only a new heaven but also a new earth. The view Cullmann holds would seem to bear traces of Origen’s Platonism.
WM. C. ROBINSON
Pretribulationism
The Rapture Question, by John F. Walvoord, Dunham, Findlay, Ohio, 1957. 204 pp., $3.00.
In this book Dr. Walvoord, president of Dallas Theological Seminary and editor of Bibliotheca Sacra, makes “a comprehensive biblical study of the translation of the Church.” The study turns out to be a trenchant defense of the theory of pretribulationism against the rival theories of posttribulationism and midtribulationism. In fact, we have here a recapitulation of the well-known arguments, pro and con, on the question (hotly debated among dispensationalists) whether the Church will go through the Great Tribulation at the end of the present age.
Walvoord’s thesis defending the pretribulational rapture of the Church rests squarely on the assumption, which he does not attempt to prove, that Daniel’s seventieth week (cf. Dan. 9:24–27) has not yet been fulfilled but still awaits its realization in the events initiated by “the rapture” and climaxed by “the revelation.” The arguments for a pretribulational rapture, therefore, will be largely ineffective and invalid until the assumption of the futurity of Daniel’s last week is established upon an impregnable foundation. There are some, including the reviewer, who believe that this goal is not likely to be attained.
There can be no question concerning Dr. Walvoord’s orthodoxy and high view of the Bible’s inspiration and authority; but this does not mean that equally competent students of prophecy could come to his conclusions or adopt some of his methods of interpretation. In fact, some proofs advanced by Walvoord approach very closely to the impossible in sober exegesis. For example, 1 Thessalonians 1:9 f. and 5:9 are cited as supports for the view that the Church will not go through the Great Tribulation (pp. 69 f.). The “wrath” of these passages is undoubtedly hell—not a brief period of seven years!
The exigencies of the dispensational system require a literal approach which sometimes pushes our author to positions that appear to be untenable. We are told, for instance, that neither the Old Testament saints nor the saints of the Great Tribulation belong to the Christian Church (pp. 24, 34, 38 f., 143 f.). Believers during the Great Tribulation constitute a kind of tertium quid—neither fully Christian nor altogether Jewish or pagan! The theory demands the exodus of the true Church and the Holy Spirit simultaneously at the rapture; therefore, it is difficult to understand how any real conversions can take place during the Great Tribulation.
In support of his pretribulationism Walvoord gives tacit approval to what appears to be an erratic exegesis of 2 Thessalonians 2:3, which transmutes the apostasia (“the failing away”) into “the rapture” itself. Pretribulationism, if it has any support at all in the Scriptures, surely does not commend itself by this kind of interpretation.
Those who equate Daniel’s seventieth week with the Great Tribulation will find in Walvoord’s volume a classic defense of pretribulationism.
WICK BROOMALL
