British Isles News: April 29, 1957

Festival In Moscow

The Youth Department of the British Council of Churches has advised young people against participating in the communist-sponsored Youth Festival to be held in Moscow this summer.

Recent criticism has suggested that Christians, by refusing to take part in the Moscow festival, are losing an opportunity of witnessing to their faith and of creating a better understanding between Christianity and communism.

The Rev. O. Fielding Clarke, a member of the Christian Commission for the festival, claims that many young people, from Roman Catholics on the one hand to Quakers on the other, are ignoring the British Council of Churches and registering as delegates. He said, “Let the young people on both sides of the so-called Iron Curtain meet freely. A Christianity that has to be kept in cottonwool is of little value in the world today and had scant appeal to young men and women of spirit.”

Replying to this, the Rev. Howard H. Patey, secretary of the BCC Youth Department, said the major voluntary youth organizations in Britain have “warmly commended” the Youth Department statement and are agreed “it would serve no constructive purpose for any British youth organization to send representatives to this festival.” These organizations include the YMCA, the YWCA, Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Associations, National Boys and Mixed Clubs Associations.

F. C.

Problem In Ireland

The emigration of a number of young Presbyterian ministers to Canada since last summer has aroused much comment and concern as to the future of the ministry in Ireland.

Among reasons given for the emigration were the lack of opportunities in the smaller country congregations and the fact that many ministers had to live on inadequate salaries. Other ministers are considering the same action.

‘Bigness And Power’

Clergymen “should look inwardly … and see if we’re on the right track, if we’re emphasizing the right things,” according to Episcopal Bishop Dudley B. McNeil of Western Michigan.

He told the Grand Rapids Ministerial Association that one reason for the continuing “man-made catastrophes” might be that the Christian Church has come to worship “bigness and power” instead of fostering the “primary tenets of love and charity” laid down by Christ.

He added:

“Perhaps million-dollar churches, beautiful rooms, new parish houses, church secretaries and assistants are not the primary concern of Christ so much as that all men and women live the best possible Christian life.

“While we seem to be satisfied with the way things are, the amount of money and number of people we send to other areas of the world on missionary efforts are so small compared with what we spend to keep up our own standard of living that the results of missionary work are negligible.”

Calling upon Christians to “put first things first,” he said that, “if we believe it’s important to spread the doctrine of Christ, we should put an appropriate amount of time and money into doing that.”

Churches other than the Irish Presbyterian also have been affected to a lesser extent.

The supply of students for the ministry of the larger Protestant bodies continues to be substantial and the spiritual quality high.

The Board of Evangelism of the Methodist Church in America is sending a group of ministers to conduct a mission in Ireland next autumn. Arrangements are being made by the Irish Methodist Evangelistic Agency.

S. W. M.

Europe News: April 29, 1957

Revival Of Confession

The League of Reformed Churches in Germany has criticized what it said was a movement inside the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKID) toward a general revival of individual confession of sins.

A statement issued by the moderamen, or top management body, of the league said, “We must warn against the false view that the confession of sins to a preacher or another brother necessarily brings forth absolution by virtue of the confession itself or by virtue of a supernatural authority of the preacher.”

The Evangelical Church in Germany comprised Lutheran, Reformed and United Churches. The reformed League represents about 450,000 persons and embraces most of the country’s Reformed parishes.

The moderamen stated:

“It is not without reason that the fathers of the Reformation fought against auricular confession—against the priestly claim to power and judgment which manifested itself in the medieval practice of confession and against the false security which men drew from the priestly word, which was not the word of God.”

Individual confession was abolished by the Protestant Church in Germany around 1700. The practice was reintroduced formally in Bavaria in the middle of the 19th century but was observed only in isolated cases.

Birkeli Resigns

Dr. Fridtjov Birkeli has resigned as director of the Department of World Missions of the Lutheran World Federation to become general secretary of the Norwegian Missionary Society.

Balked By Sentiment

Popular sentiment has balked plans to tear down remains of the war-bombed Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church.

The church’s board of trustees approved the proposal, but changed the decision after their announced plans created a storm of protest. A communist East Berlin paper joined the clamor.

Trustees compromised by announcing they will retain the blackened 350-foot tower and probably erect a small church adjacent to it.

A symbol of postwar Berlin, the tower stands in the center of a traffic circle at one end of the Kurfuerstendamm, the city’s most popular shopping and hotel thoroughfare.

Known to Berliners as the Gedaechtniskirche, the Memorial Church was dedicated in 1897 to Kaiser Wilhelm I, who died in 1888. Mosaics in the west lobby depicting the Hohenzollern rulers surviyed the Allied air attacks which shattered the building on Nov. 23, 1943.

Church Offerings

Widespread consternation throughout the Christian community of Egypt greeted the “Fatwa” (legal opinion) by the government that collections should not be taken in churches or mosques.

Mosques do not take up a collection at weekly services.

The opinion said all contributions toward the support of such institutions should be systemized under the supervision of the Ministry of Social Affairs.

While a “Fatwa” does not carry the force of law, the announcement is interpreted as a prelude to the issuance of specific legislation. Observers cannot predict, however, how the government can reconcile such a step with the clear-cut guarantees in new Constitution with respect to free and unfettered worship. Christianity holds offerings to be an integral part of the total act of worship.

The announcement, according to Christian leaders, is but one more link in the chain of evidence which shows the determination of the present regime to restrict the freedom of minority religious groups, whether local or foreign.

Nigerian Broadcasts

A Baptist Clergyman has been named first chairman of the newly-formed Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation. He is Dr. J. T. Ayorinde, pastor of First Baptist Church, Lagos, and a vice president of the Baptist World Alliance.

His appointment has been hailed in Nigeria as an indication that the broadcasting corporation will encourage religious freedom.

“I see this as an opportunity to make a civic contribution,” said the 49-year-old former president of the Nigerian Baptist Convention (1950–1955).

Return To Egypt

Less than 48 hours after the announcement by the U. S. State Department that the five-month ban on Americans traveling to Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Israel had been lifted, wives and children of American diplomatic, business and missionary personnel began returning to Egypt—the land they had left so hastily when the fighting began last October.

Some 40 men, women and children of the American (United Presbyterian) Mission were expected to return on a single KLM flight from Europe. Together with others, on extended furloughs in the United States, these returnees have done much to relieve the pressure of work for those who did not evacuate or were permitted earlier returns.

Lifting of the ban was regarded as a healthy sign, looking forward to continued improvement of the political situation in the Middle East.

With expectations of a huge influx of tourists during the spring and summer, Israel has rushed plans to make the visitors more comfortable.

“Pent-up desires to visit the land of the Bible have been building up in America at a tremendous rate,” said Joseph Ilan, director of the Israel Government Tourist Office in New York.

Air lines are adding new equipment and more schedules to the run. Air-conditioned hotels are being opened and others are modernizing.

Sign In Capetown

Anglical authorities erected a sign on the steps of St. George’s Cathedral in Capetown:

“This cathedral is open to all men and women of all races to all services at all times.”

The cathedral is a stone’s throw from the House of Assembly which approved, upon its second reading, the Native Laws Amendment bill, giving the government the right to prohibit Africans from worshipping with whites.

The measure has been denounced by leaders of most major religious bodies in South Africa. Some served notice on the government that they will defy the bill if it becomes law.

Dr. Richard Ambrose Reeves, Anglican Bishop of Johannesburg, told parishioners they could not in good conscience obey such legislation.

The very Reverend T. J. Savage, Dean of Capetown, said the cathedral sign was “not put up as a protest against anything, but as a positive statement of where we stand and have stood in the past. It represents the policy of this church since 33 A.D. We thought it a good time to remind people of it.”

Far East News: April 29, 1957

Indonesia Crusade

The Rev. Dave Morken, well known evangelist in the Far East, will hold special meetings in four cities of Indonesia during May under sponsorship of Orient Crusades.

Many churches are uniting for the meetings. Working with the evangelist will be Norman Nelson, soloist. Roy Robertson of the Navigators will be in charge of follow-up work. Ais Pormes is secretary of the Indonesian committee.

Resurgence In Asia

A revival of every major religion of Asia is in process.

The changes taking place over the vast expanse, where over half the world’s population lives, have been described as “revolution.” These changes have to do not only with politics, but also with economics, culture and religion.

With the advent of the new independent nations—India, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Vietnam and Korea—a renewed interest has naturally been manifested in culture and history. As the culture of these nations has been closely related to native religions, there has been a resurgence of religion in most lands.

In some sections where native religions have not been very active, they have been stimulated by the Christian Church—their revival, to some extend, has been in self-defense. Some branches of Buddhism in Japan have built auditoriums, where they have worship services similar to Christian practice. Shintoism also is showing rapid growth. In Formosa, where Buddhism has been somewhat decadent, there have been signs of new activity. A Buddhist church has been erected, with pews, a pulpit, organ, choir and Sunday School. The only observable difference in the building is that, instead of a cross on the roof, there is a swastika resting on a lotus flower.

Representatives of theological institutions in east Asia met in Bangkok recently and made plans for a study institute to be held at Singapore from July 1 to August 30. Because of the importance of understanding these native religions and the new developments taking place within them, the institute is to be devoted entirely to the study of such religions.

The Christian religion also is in the midst of a great expansion.

War Loss Claims

One hundred and two claims totaling $26,713,000 have been filed with the U. S. Foreign Claims Settlement Commission by Roman Catholic, Protestant and non-Christian bodies asking compensation for war losses sustained in the Philippines.

Protestant groups filed 44 claims amounting to $3,508,000. Roman Catholic organizations filed 34 claims totaling $14,221,000.

A single claim of $6,002,000 was made by the Universal Theomanistic Association for the alleged death of 3,000 members.

Books

Book Briefs: April 29, 1957

Historical Apologetic

Thales to Dewey, a History of Philosophy, by G. H. Clark. Houghton Mifflin, 1957. $5.00.

A sound scholarly text on the History of Philosophy in the light of the Word of God has long been desired by Christian teachers and students. The present work by Professor Gordon H. Clark is admirably suited to meet this need. Solid scholarship and biblical faith appear in this volume, not in juxtaposition, but fused into a unified whole. Chapters five and eleven, titled respectively “The Patristic Period,” and “Contemporary Irrationalism,” are representative of the book as a whole in this important respect.

The discussion of the Patristic period opens with the drawing of a clear-cut contrast between Paganism and Christianity. A careful analysis of the logic of the terms “transcendent” and “immanent” serves to clarify the contrary opposition between Greek Immanentism and Hebrew Transcendence. The Scripture doctrines of Creation and Revelation stand out sharply against the background of Greek Philosophy even at its best in Platonism and Stoicism. Alleged resemblances between the latter philosophy and the New Testament are exposed as superficial and attempts to find Pauline theology in Paganism are weighed and found wanting. The cogent argument brought against the claim that Paul taught ascetic dualism is the apostle’s opposition to the heretics at Colossae who lived by the evil maxim “Touch not, taste not, handle not”. Equally pertinent in relation to the assertion that Paul was a mystic is the observation that Paul’s visions, unlike those of Plotinus, were full of subjects and predicates. “And the things known, the doctrines revealed are not echoes of Greek philosophy or mystery religions” (p. 194).

The distance between the first and the twentieth century may appear immense. Yet modern irrationalism re-enacts the “failure of nerve” that marked the closing centuries of antiquity. Professor Clark sketches the line of development from Hegel the last great Rationalist of modern times, to Marx and Kierkegaard on the one hand, and on the other, through French positivism to Pragmatism culminating in the Instrumentalism of John Dewey.

No attempt is made to present an exhaustive account of the development since Hegel. Any presentation of living philosophers is disclaimed, although an exception is made by way of a reference to the dialectical theology of Emil Brunner and its kinship with the atheistic Existentialism of Sartre and Heidegger. Heidegger, incidentally, disclaims this label which Sartre vaunts. A future edition of the book would be enriched by a fuller discussion of Existentialism as the most radical expression of Irrationalism. At the same time, many contemporary readers would appreciate some reference to a more rationalistic thinker, Ludwig Wittgenstein and the movements of linguistic analysis dependent on his work which exercise a predominant influence in the English speaking philosophical world today.

A sacrifice of breadth was no doubt required for the achievement of a measure of depth in a necessarily limited study of a number of difficult thinkers. Post-Hegelian German thought is illustrated by the views of Schopenhauer, Strauss and Feuerbach. In reference to Strauss, the mythologizing theory is timely in view of the discussion of de-mythologizing the New Testament stirred up recently by Bultmann under the influence of Heidegger’s philosophy. Unbelief can attach itself as readily to an irrationalist as to a rationalist philosophy.

More detailed treatment is reserved for Marx, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, as befits the stature and influence of these thinkers. Hegel’s dialectic with its repudiation of fixity in the world or in thought profoundly influenced the three notwithstanding their violent antagonism to Hegel’s rational absolute. Marx shares Hegel’s collectivism, which is anathema to Kierkegaard and also to Nietzsche, whose Superman is explained to be a type of superior individual such as Caesar of Napoleon. Marx and Nietzsche are avowedly anti-Christian, while Kierkegaard champions Christianity to the extent of condemning the established Church for its satisfaction with externals without the life of the cross. Yet Kierkegaard’s intensely Christian feeling embodied itself in the language of Hegel’s dialectic. The result was the extravagant identification of truth with subjectivity which has inspired dialectical theologians and existentialist philosophers in the twentieth century. The logical incongruity of such sceptical subjectivism is pointed out together with the religious consequence that an idol would be as satisfactory as God, if objective truth were indifferent in relation to subjective feeling. The critique of Kierkegaard’s subjectivism is an application of a general principle which Dr. Clark wields against every form of Scepticism. The principle is that as soon as Scepticism makes any assertion, it destroys itself, since its essence is the refusal to assert anything. Dialectical materialism is thus refuted by pointing out that if thought is the natural product of the brain, there is no reason to believe that ideas of dialectical materialism are more natural or more true than others. Nietzsche’s theory of evolutionary rationalism is disposed of by showing that if it is true, it must be false.

The logical law of non-contradiction likewise discredits Pragmatism as developed by James, Schiller and Dewey. Yet, the reader will find himself spared any sense of monotonous repetition. The same principle is variously applied in accordance with the variety of forms that irrationalist thought assumes and the argument is rendered charming by ironical turns, of which the remark that “solipsism is pragmatically indistinguishable from pragmatism” (p. 512) appears to be one of the most subtle instances.

The analysis of John Dewey’s philosophy is an appropriate termination to the work, not because of any reason for holding Dewey to be the ultimate in the history of philosophy, but rather because of the uncanny influence for evil that his philosophy has exercised in education. Dewey’s disciples have been superficial in comparison with their master, but Dewey himself, despite the delicacy of his dialectic, is as devoid of foundations that endure as any other irrationalist thinker.

This chapter reminds the reviewer of the late J. Gresham Machen’s analysis of the anti-intellectual character of modern liberalism in philosophy and religion. In professing Protestantism today, Modernism and Neo-orthodoxy alike rest on philosophical foundations which are destructive of the intellect. Conservative theology which subjects man’s reason to the authority of the infallible Word stands alone also in ascribing to the intellect its God-given dignity. The present volume, therefore, is no mere textbook of the history of philosophy. It is a masterpiece of historical apologetic for the faith once delivered to the saints.

WILLIAM YOUNG

Five Martyrs Of Acua

Through Gates of Splendor, by Elisabeth Elliot. Harper Brothers. $3.75.

“September, 1955, was the month in which Operation Auca really started, the month in which the Lord began to weave five separate threads into a single glowing fabric for His Own glory. Five men with widely differing personalities had come to Ecuador from the eastern United States, the West Coast and the Midwestern States. Representing three different faith missions, these men and their wives were one in their common belief in the Bible as the literal and supernatural and perfect word from God to man. Christ said ‘Go ye’; their answer was ‘Lord, send me.’ ”

So begins chapter nine in this moving portrayal of the lives of the five young missionary martyrs of Ecuador. Through the first eight chapters, Elisabeth Elliot (herself one of the five missionary widows) has skillfully traced the events in the lives of these consecrated young men that led up to this time when the “five scattered threads” began to draw together to form the picture that, in January, 1956, focused the attention of the world on a little sandy beach in Ecuador beside a river called the Curaray.

In the 10 chapters that follow she describes the careful, prayerful preparations leading up to the first personal contacts with the savage Aucas; the encouragement that came when the Aucas responded with gifts to the friendly overtures of the missionaries; and finally the “Silence” (chapter 18) of that fateful day when radio contact ceased.

Skillfully written, fast-moving, Through Gates of Splendor is more than just a book; it is a spiritual experience. Writing with dignity and restraint, never descending to a level of self-pity or excessive adulation, Mrs. Elliot draws on her own intimate knowledge of the details of Operation Auca, along with that of other widows, as well as the heart-outpourings from the diaries and letters of martyred missionaries Jim Elliot, Ed McCully, Peter Fleming, Nate Saint and Roger Youderian. One almost feels that he stands “on holy ground” as he is allowed to look into the diaries—and indeed into the hearts—of these missionary heroes and see their devotion to Christ, their utter death to self, their compassionate desires to reach those who have never heard the Gospel.

Complete with 64 pages of pictures, sparkling with vivid descriptions of native speech, dress and customs, Through Gates of Splendor is 256 pages of engrossing reading. But always the reader is gripped with its deep spiritual message. Between its lines and behind its pages there seem to ring out five strong young voices with the words they sang only a few hours before they laid down their lives for Christ and the Aucas for whom He died:

“We rest on Thee, Our Shield

and our Defender,

Thine is the Battle, Thine

shall be the praise

When passing through the gates

of pearly splendor

Victors, we rest with Thee

through endless days.”

LARRY WARD

Fertile Ideas

Prayer and Life’s Highest, by Paul S. Rees. Eerdmans, 1956. $2.00.

The six chapters of this slender volume by the Pastor of the First Covenant Church of Minneapolis discuss prayers of the Apostle Paul under the headings of Mastery, Excellency, Consistency, Sanctity, Expectancy and Serenity. These are not ordinary devotional readings, designed to preface periods of prayer but solid materials which ought to be read and reread by those in quest of the deep things of the Spirit of God. Nearly every page suggests fertile ideas for sermons or discussions concerning prayer, but not in the neat outline form that can be utilized with scant preparation. Rather by suggesting fresh interpretations and applications, the chapters will stimulate the reader to further study by which he can develop his own exposition of these important topics. Though the reputation of Dr. Rees as a preacher and writer has long been an enviable one, this book even surpasses his usual excellence. It may well have taken form during the London crusade, when the author as special preacher to British pastors, witnessed anew the great power of prayer. At least it reflects a liberty and freedom that a pastor seldom enjoys to this degree within his own parish. A master in the use of the English language, Dr. Rees writes with facility and spiritual power, revealing a breadth of knowledge and penetrating insight into the best literature, both sacred and secular. The volume abounds with fresh and telling illustrations, choice quotations and exegetical and expository passages, all presented without the moralistic or didactic tone that mars so much writing in this field.

To indicate the intellectual and spiritual vigor of this book one paragraph is quoted from the initial chapter, dealing with the prayers of the apostle for the Ephesians:

“Prayer for masterful living—that’s what we have here. Prayer for Christians that they may find in Christ, since they cannot find it anywhere else, the ability to cope with life, to beat down the ‘principalities and power,’ to turn back the onrush of temptation, to outwit the machinations of the devil, to subdue and regulate the instinctual drives of human nature, to fasten to the Cross the false ego that so stubbornly resists its doom—what prayer for mastery this is!”

This is a book that should win an honored place in prayer literature. To the present reviewer, at least, it seems destined to become a classic and perhaps some day to be numbered with the writings of Alexander Whyte, Andrew Murray, A. J. Gordon and John Henry Jowett.

ERIC EDWIN PAULSON

Pulpit Master

500 Selected Sermons, by T. DeWitt Talmadge. Baker, 1956. $4.50.

A reading of the sermons of great pulpit masters of the past serves forcibly to remind us that timely preaching is always that preaching which is concerned with the timeless themes.

Though preached during a stirring period of great conflict and change, the sermons of T. DeWitt Talmadge still today seem to be speaking to our contemporary situation. Some of the themes of the sermons in this volume under review are “The Gospel of Health,” “Surgery without Pain,” “A Helpful Religion” and “The Dangers of Pessimism.” These sound almost like some of our “peace of mind” and “power of positive thinking” sermons today, yet they are all presented within the framework of real, solid, enduring theology.

In Talmadge’s heyday evolution and the new critical views of the Bible were to the fore in the thinking of the popular man. Talmadge took up his cudgels and went to work in behalf of the “splendors of orthodoxy.” How he fought the battle in his day is seen in such sermons in this volume as “The Monarch of Books,” “The Guess of Evolution,” “Revision of Creeds,” “Expurgation of the Scriptures” and “Slanders Against the Bible.” Something of his approach can be understood from these words with which he opened his sermon, “Splendors of Orthodoxy”:

A great London fog has come down upon some of the ministers and some of the churches in the shape of what is called ‘advanced thought’ in biblical interpretation. All of them, without any exception, deny the full inspiration of the Bible. Genesis is an allegory, and there are many myths in the Bible.

Still relevant to our day of revolution in biblical theology, is it not?

One of the great problems facing us today is the matter of communication. How shall we communicate the truth of God to modern man? The scholars are seeking to find a new vocabulary that can speak in the dimension of revelation. These sermons of Talmadge unveil the secret of communication. It is not in new words, but in preaching the old words in a down to earth, practical, everyday way that will help people. Rather than preaching in precise theological terms, Talmadge painted word pictures of truth that impressed themselves on the hearts of men.

T. DeWitt Talmadge was one of America’s most influential preachers around the turn of the century. He preached to great crowds in “The Central Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn, N. Y. and millions more were reached through the printing of his sermons in the newspapers. Five hundred of his best sermons are now being printed in ten double volumes by Baker Book House so that Christians of today may be guided and inspired by the successful pulpit message and methods of this great preacher of the last century. This double volume III–IV contains 54 sermons of the series and the themes with which they deal are all very much to the fore in the Christian life of our day.

The rhetoric of this pulpit master loses something by being printed rather than preached, and the style is not what our newspaper type minds are used to, but these messages still have meat and will nourish us in our stirring times which are not so far removed from those of Talmadge.

W. G. FOSTER

Scholarly Commentaries

The Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, by Lightfoot. Zondervan, $3.50. St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians, by Lightfoot. Zondervan, $3.50. St. Paid’s Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, by Lightfoot. Zondervan, $4.50.

Scholarly commentaries on the Greek text of the letters of the Apostle Paul are not being produced by British and American scholars today. Because of this the serious student of the Scriptures is forced to turn either to the works of German and Dutch scholars (if he is able) or to the works of past generations. It is to supply this latter type of demand that the Zondervan Publishing House has reprinted these three commentaries of the Cambridge scholar, J. B. Lightfoot.

Dr. Lightfoot was a colleague of the well-known New Testament scholars Westcott and Hort, and his commentaries in the “Macmillan Series” on the books of the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers have been in constant demand from the time they first appeared 90 years ago right down to our own day. In the books before us we have a good deal more than just a commentary, and this is perhaps what has made them so valuable to serious students. The questions of Introduction are made to live. Exactly who were the Galatians, where and in what condition was Paul when he wrote to the Philippians, what was the nature of the heresy at Colossae? Lightfoot’s style is energetic, arresting and lively as he considers these matters that in some commentaries are as dry as dust.

In the body of the commentaries there is full and ample discussion of the exegetical problems involved, and the thoroughness of the author’s acquaintance with the Greek classics, as well as the language of the New Testament, is soon apparent. If one is interested in knowing what the Greek text of the Apostle Paul says, he won’t find many who know and sympathize with the language and thought of the apostle better than Lightfoot.

But not the least interesting part of each commentary is the appendix where one finds in the Commentary on the Galatians two long dissertations, one on the Brethren of the Lord, and one on Paul’s relationships with Peter, James and John. In the Colossians and Philemon is an appendix on the Essenes and their relationship to Christianity, a subject that will be increasingly discussed in the light of the new knowledge of the Qumran community. And in the commentary on the Philippians there is a brief comment on the relations of Paul to the Stoic philosopher Seneca, and then a 90 page essay on, “The Christian Ministry.” This latter has been bound separately in past years and has been highly prized by those whose persuasion in matters of church polity is Episcopalian. It is definitely of a “low-church” character and could be read with profit by all those who seek light on the nature of the ministry and priesthood in the early church.

It should be clearly stated that Lightfoot’s commentaries are not of the homiletical, sermon-starter variety. But the student of the New Testament who is interested in knowing exactly what the Apostle Paul had to say will find these books invaluable.

JOSEPH C. HOLBROOK, JR.

Splendid Tool

A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated and edited by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich from W. Bauer’s Griechischdeutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur 4th ed. 1952. University of Chicago Press, 1957. $14.00.

The publication of this lexicon will make a major contribution to the study of the Greek New Testament text among present-day scholars. For many centuries earnest students of the scriptures have felt compelled to go back to the original text to ascertain their true meaning. To do this the best possible tools are essential. Basic to the study of the Greek text is a sound lexicon. The older lexicons leaned heavily on the classical lexicons to find their meanings. But the inspired authors of the New Testament did not write in the same vein as the classical authors. The Greek of the New Testament is the language of the people, the so-called koine Greek of every-day life and usage.

Those contributing to this lexicon have availed themselves of the vast archeological discoveries which have thrown so much light on the meaning of New Testament Greek words. In addition to giving a competent translation of Walter Bauer’s Greek-German Lexicon, they have extended it and revised it. There has been some re-arrangement of entries, corrections and the inclusion of more irregular verb-forms—all to render this work a splendid tool for every student who wishes to “search the Scriptures” in the original.

STILES LESSLY

Practical Epistle

Make Your Faith Work, by Louis H. Evans. Revell, 1957. $2.50.

The Epistle of James is the least technical of all the Epistles. It is full of strong, practical sense and has a message for Christians of every degree of attainment. James insists that the Christian’s religion must show. There are certain marks by which people can recognize a Christian. With remarkable skill Dr. Evans shows us that if we want to be real followers of Christ, the Epistle to James is a good guide.

There are many theories as to the authorship of the Epistle of James. Dr. Evans is persuaded that the best evidence favors the view that the author was James, the brother of the Lord Jesus Christ. With this assumption, Dr. Evans writes,

If the brother of Jesus was the author—and we proceed on that well-established premise—then the Epistle he wrote becomes something more than merely interesting, for it contains the conclusions of a brother about a divine brother. What could be more intimate, more revealing? Brothers are always hypersensitive to what their own think and say about them. ‘What does your brother think of you?’ is a question that goes into your heart like a knife. So what James says about Jesus, about his faith and works, would go deep.

After the Resurrection James became an ardent believer in the deity of Christ. He served as the pastor of the Church at Jerusalem, and it was to him that the Christians of the day flocked for fellowship and counsel. James, says Dr. Evans, saw in the life of Christ not only a faith but a force. As a result of what he saw he has given us a practical way of living and realistic power to match the problems of the day.

The nine chapters in this book all deal with soul-searching questions. The topics are, “How Do You Face Life’s Trials?,” “Is Your Religion Words or Works?,” “Are You Prejudiced?,” “Is Your Tongue Converted?,” “Do You Own a Peaceful Heart?,” “Are You Conceited?,” “Is Your Money Converted?,” “Can Your Faith Heal?” and “Are You a Soul Winner?” The author tells us that if the reader can answer these questions in the proper way, then his brothers and family may catch the vision of the divine brother, too. Many a doubting Thomas may be arrested by the evidences of the reader’s Christian life, filled as it can be with workable, practical power.

While in no wise minimizing the value of the healing of the body, Dr. Evans shows in this book that men are far more interested in the healing of the body than in the healing of the soul. With this observation, he comments,

Would to God it were possible to arouse as much interest in the healing of a man’s soul as we have in the healing of his body! Regrettably, it has never been thus, in human society.… People flock to the spectacular. They come with little urging to pray in intercession for the healing of physical man. But suppose you tell these same people that ‘the prayer of faith will save the sick’ and inform them that you are using this word ‘save’ in a strictly spiritual sense—how many will flock together for such a purpose? To promise to heal the body brings crowds; to promise to save the soul brings a blank stare. We spend millions on hospitals, on medical research, on efforts to cure cancer, polio and tuberculosis—and who would not thank God for that? But in comparison we spend pennies for the cure and salvage of the human soul.

With a high sense of final values, Dr. Evans calls Christians to regain a Christian interest in the spiritual equation of human beings. To see what happens to the soul of man is of supreme importance in the mind of God.

Dr. Evans is a wise counsellor. His style is unpretentious and pungent. The inescapable conclusion that the reader reaches as he comes to the end of this book is that in all the major areas of human interest, the Christian faith works. This is evidence that no clever unbeliever can rule out of the court of honest judgment.

The pastor will find this book of value to make practical applications of the Gospel message. The layman will find inspiration to manifest his Christian life that it may exert an influence over those outside of the church.

JOHN R. RICHARDSON

Tools Or Crutches

Master Book of New Illustrations, by Walter B. Knight. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. $6.95.

The publication of a volume of sermonic illustrations is always both an asset and a liability for the preacher. On the one hand, it provides him with a wide assortment of materials to which he can turn for the purpose of illuminating most any propositional truth of Scripture. And only an insignificant few would challenge the value of illustrations wisely selected and used with discretion. They add to the impact of a sermon and often make a lasting impression upon the minds of the audience, thus aiding the memory in recalling the principles they elucidate. On the other hand, a book of this kind by its very nature is a common storehouse. When employed by a large number of preachers the freshness of the materials is lost to congregations through repetition. For this reason certain classic illustrations have merited the label “canned.”

While insisting that the best illustrations are those which the preacher personally garners from a great variety of sources, we also admit the desirability of publications of this sort. Whether in an individual case they become tools or crutches depends entirely upon the manner in which they are used.

This is the second massive volume of illustrations to come from the pen of Mr. Knight. It consists of 760 double-columned pages. One finds it difficult to name any major topic overlooked by the author. The materials are arranged according to subjects, which in turn appear alphabetically. The one weakness at this point is the omission of an index with cross-references. Many illustrations admit of several applications, but, except in the few instances where Knight records them under several classifications, this factor has been neglected.

On the whole, the illustrations are lucid; however, occasionally one meets with obscurity and ambiguity. As for quality, one must allow the right of personal taste. In the opinion of the reviewer more than one-half of the materials are unsuitable. Some have long ago lost their novelty. Some seem pointless. Some are stereotyped. Many others lack polish, hut can be made effective if the minister rephrases them, drops old cliches and dresses them up in more dignified language. Notwithstanding these defects, preachers, teachers and Christian workers will profit from the purchase of this book. The ordinary layman will find inspiration, instruction and delight of soul in its pages. We therefore commend the author for his contribution to this field, a contribution horn of much reading and research.

RICHARD ALLEN BODEY

Challenging Call

James, Your Brother, by Lehman Strauss. Loizeaux Brothers, 1956. $3.00.

The warmly devotional and practical meditations on the Epistle of James in this recent book by Dr. Strauss provide a fresh and challenging call to Christian living. The Epistle of James is itself, of course, an eminently practical book which should be an unfailing stimulus to the performance of the duty which God requires of man. But to be best understood and most profitably used it should be interpreted in the context of the whole revelation that God has given us in the Scriptures. Dr. Strauss constantly endeavors to bring the light of other parts of the Bible to bear on the understanding of his text. A most welcome and wholesome feature of his approach is his high view of the Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God and his consequent realization that the part has relevance to the whole and the whole to the part.

The author’s experience as both pastor and teacher has unquestionably made a contribution to the clarity, simplicity, directness and effectiveness of his presentation. He is concerned to reach his reader; he is not averse to addressing him in a warm-hearted, earnest, pastoral way; he labors that the practical Epistle of James may bring forth practical fruits in the reader’s faith and life.

The reviewer does not agree with all the positions taken in the book but is grateful for its devout and heartening summons to the service of our great God and Saviour.

JOHN H. SKILTON

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: April 29, 1957

John H. Gerstner

In the current issue of Pastoral Care attention is called to the centennial of the birth of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). The Rev. Kenneth H. Rogers, Ph.D., tells something of the life of the famous Austrian Jewish psychoanalyst and his present significance for religion. Freud was a man of deep feeling who seldom revealed it, although control was often difficult for him. He was a good husband and an exemplary father of his six children. Professionally, he began as a neurologist and achieved distinction before he turned his attention to hypnotism in 1895. “This led to the use of the method of ‘free association’ as a cathartic technique in working with neurotic patients. The great turning-point came with Freud’s intuition that ‘free association’ was not really free, but determined in every possible respect.”

The above experience led to his first fundamental principle in psychoanalysis, namely, that all mental phenomena are completely determined. All abnormal behavior was but an inhibition or distortion of this normal deterministic pattern; this was his derivative second principle.

The nature of this psychological deterministic pattern as being oriented in the libido, which is usually taken as basically a sexual drive, has been regarded as uncongenial to Christian thought. Certainly Freud himself was hostile to religion. But Dr. Rogers feels that we may distinguish between the man and his method and use the latter for religious purposes. (One cannot help feeling that the religious Freudians are betraying a “sacred” trust of their dead master.) In any case, the enlightening article is rather provoking in not explaining quite what this area of cooperation between psychoanalysis and religion (especially Christianity) is. A system developed by an intelligent man who used it in lieu of, or against, religious theories, cannot now be taken captive by religion without some more convincing justification than is here given.

The question of the nature of God and gospel makes the brilliant analysis of the present trend to religion on college campuses, by Lewis W. Spitz (“Jerusalem and Athens: A Tale of Two Cities” in The Lutheran Scholar, January 1957) all the more intriguing. After a survey of considerable evidence of a return to religion in the colleges, Dr. Spitz warns: “There is, it should now be obvious, no cause for a premature celebration of Christendom over the return to religion on the campus. But therein lies the challenge.” A return to religion may be good, depending on what religion. The professor then makes some suggestions especially appealing to Lutheranism which he calls American Protestantism’s “secret weapon” (quoted from Professor Sidney Meade).

Speaking of Lutheranism reminds us of a strong statement that this theology, though it has sometimes adopted episcopal government, has never regarded it as essential (Ragnar Askmark, “The Lutheran Church and Episcopal Succession” in The Lutheran World, September 1956). At the same time the Episcopal Church organ, Living Voice, gives notice that the Church of South India is in danger precisely because it is apparently playing free and loose with this essential of the church (April 7, 1957). “A warning that the Episcopal Church is faced with decisions that might well lead to serious rifts was expressed by the Rev. Canon Albert J. du Bois, executive director of the American Church Union. Canon du Bois … said he was referring specifically to recommendations concerning the relationship of the Church to the pan-Protestant Church of South India.…” In the ensuing report, evidence of departure from the Episcopal view of the bishopric plus laxity in doctrine are the chief grounds of the present anxiety. [The Ordinal of the Book of Common Prayer requires unequivocal adherence to Christian doctrine, belief in Catholic sacramental doctrine and belief in Catholic Orders—requirements which the C.S.I. ministry did not fulfill.] Canon du Bois said his criticism was offered along the lines of the purpose of the ACU “to uphold the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church; to extend the knowledge of the Catholic faith and practice of the Church,” and “to maintain unimpaired the position of the Episcopal Church as an integral part of the whole Catholic Church of Christ.”

These two notes, a Lutheran insistence on the dispensability of episcopal order and an Episcopalian insistence on its indispensability, point up the fact that the acids of modernity have not eaten away this ancient bone of contention.

- More from John H. Gerstner

Cover Story

Twentieth-Century Scientists and the Resurrection of Christ

Wilbur M. Smith

Today no first-rate scientist believes in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, according to H. L. Mencken, late literary critic and often blasphemous commentator on the Christian faith. Doubtless many people in our country really suppose this to be the case. How rarely indeed is a leading contemporary scientist identified with any clear declaration of his Christian belief! As teachers and ministers know, even many young people firm in their faith in Christ are asking, “Do any great scientists of our day believe the verities of the Christian revelation?”

Importance Of Scientific Faith

The reason that the faith of scientists in relation to the cardinal Christian truths is so pre-eminently important—more so even than that of historians, economists or legislators—is that the world today is more and more controlled by pure and applied science, for in this realm great discoveries are taking place. Men cannot deny that scientists are pursuing truth in their specialized investigations, and that they are, as it were, attempting to ascertain facts. Although scientists themselves are, in the main, men of humble spirit, seldom claiming even semi-omniscience, the general public tends to confer on them a final authority in any field in which they express an opinion. If, then, our contemporary scientists, who in these past few years have brought forth a new and revolutionary understanding of nature and whose investigations the Western powers are underwriting with billions of dollars, are known to be men who reject the basic truths gathered around the person of Christ, as set forth in the New Testament, the common people are encouraged to relax their confidence in the supernatural elements of the Christian faith.

The only way to determine what modern scientists actually believe is to let them express their views over their own names. Common opinion, guesses, the writings of one man here and another man there, will not give us an accurate statistical analysis of the faith of our scientists.

I secured the names of those who have attained in the biological and physical sciences a reputation justifying their inclusion in the current volume of Who’s Who in America. Since the last edition of American Men of Science lists 44,000 men of professional standing working in the physical sciences, and 25,000 in the biological sciences, it was impossible for one person to address an inquiry to 69,000 men and women. Recognizing that some outstanding scientists do not appear in the current volume of Who’s Who in America, I addressed my inquiry not only to those persons included in that volume but also to members of the National Academy of Sciences listed in the preceding volume of Who’s Who but not in the current one.

An Unmistakable Inquiry

The subject of the resurrection of Christ was chosen for the inquiry because of its definiteness and also its pre-eminent importance in relation to other Christian doctrines. A man’s views on the subject of immortality of the soul would not in any way reveal his relationship to the Christian faith. To ask if one believes in the inspiration of the Scriptures is at once to raise the question, what is meant by inspiration—and one has little reason to expect a scientist to define the term. A question regarding belief in the deity of Christ would be too indefinite, since some would doubtless reply in the affirmative, acknowledging the deity of Christ—and of every man. The bodily resurrection of Christ—whether or not one believes in it—is set forth in the New Testament as a specific historical event, taking place at a certain time in a certain place; it involves a specific individual and the phenomenon of an objective reality that could be touched and seen (Luke 24:39,40; cf. 1 John 1:1–3).

The names of those working in the biological and physical sciences listed in the 1956–1957 volume of Who’s Who number 606. I did not write to Unitarians or Universalists, whose replies would certainly be in the negative; likewise the three Mormons, two agnostics, one liberal and one member of the Ethical Culture Society. Scientists of Jewish faith, insofar as this could be determined from their names and place of education (there were 37), were excluded. Excluding the 62 members of these groups, letters were sent to 544 scientists (with stamped, self-addressed return envelopes). Notices came that seven of the men had died since the current Who’s Who was published; five had moved, with forwarding addresses unknown; eleven were out of town. This left 521 men from whom replies could be expected.

Preliminary Observations

The examination of Who’s Who in America disclosed three rather surprising facts. First, not one individual out of these six hundred men and women indicated an affiliation with the Christian Science Church. Second, although a large number of Jews surely are laboring in these fields, not one indicates in his biographical summary that he is of the Hebrew faith. Is there no leading Jewish scientist in this company, we must ask, who wishes to be identified as a faithful attendant at the synagogue and as a believer in the Old Testament Scriptures? Finally, although 144 of these men and women indicated membership in some Protestant church, only twelve gave affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church. This paucity of Roman Catholics in the front ranks of modern science has been frequently discussed by others and is recognized as a problem by Catholic writers today.

Before revealing the results of the survey made for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, it may be well to speak briefly of a poll of younger scientists reported in Fortune (June, 1954) in the article on “The Young Scientist.” One hundred and four of the leading young men of science in America were sent questionnaires covering a number of subjects, including personal religious convictions. The statistics indicate that although 5 per cent of the parents of these men were of the Roman Catholic faith, none of the present generation wishes to be so identified; although 29 per cent of the parents were more or less inclined to the Jewish faith, only 9 per cent of the sons are so disposed today; 53 per cent of the parents had Protestant convictions, but only 23 per cent of their sons would claim the same. Most striking of all, while only 8 per cent of the parents were said to be agnostics or atheists, 45 per cent of the sons so declared themselves.

Four Out Of Five Waver

Of the 521 potential replies to my inquiry, 228 replies have been received (a few continue to arrive daily). They include 36 affirmations of faith in the resurrection and 192 non-affirmations. This latter group falls into three classes: 142 of these scientists state definitely that they do not believe in the resurrection of Christ; 28 indicate that they do not wish to express an opinion; and 23 say that they do not know whether or not Christ rose from the dead. The ratio then is about four non-affirmations to one affirmation. In other words, only one out of five of the leading scientists in these fields believes in the bodily resurrection of Christ.

Unbelief In The Churches

The most surprising aspect is the acknowledged lack of faith in the resurrection of Christ on the part of scientists who claim membership in some Protestant evangelical denomination. Of the 521 scientists, 144 indicated affiliation with some Protestant church. From these 144, 88 replies have thus far been received; 7 say they do not know if Christ rose from the dead; 12 do not wish to give an opinion; 41 do not believe; and 28 do believe in the resurrection—or one out of three. The following table presents an analysis of these figures by denominations.

In view of the extreme liberal views of many Congregationalists and the infiltration of modernism in the Methodist Church, the majority of denials from men in these denominations was no surprise. But it was somewhat astonishing to find as many Episcopalians denying the resurrection as professing to believe it and more Baptists and Presbyterians rejecting it than affirming it. One cannot help but wonder how men can unite with churches whose creeds or historic confessions bear clear testimony to the bodily resurrection of Christ, while they disbelieve what their sacred traditions affirm. Undoubtedly this means that many clergymen are receiving into their churches members who do not embrace the essentials of the Christian faith, and also, in turn, that many of the clergy themselves do not believe in the resurrection.

The Command To Witness

The New Testament repeatedly enjoins Christians to bear witness that Christ rose from the dead. In referring to his death and resurrection, Jesus reminded his disciples, “Ye are witnesses of these things” (Luke 24:48). To this truth of our Lord’s resurrection the Apostle Peter witnessed on the Day of Pentecost, “This Jesus did God raise up, whereof we all are witnesses” (Acts 2:32). Again and again when the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin, and when Paul stood before various rulers of his day, they gave glad and emphatic testimony to the historic reality of the resurrection (Acts 3:15, 5:32; 10:39; 26:23). The Apostle Paul assured men of salvation if they confessed with their mouth the Lord Jesus and believed in their heart “that God raised him from the dead” (Rom. 10:9).

No matter how many more believers are hidden in this group of American scientists, it is profoundly disturbing that only 36 scientists of a total of 521 leaders in the biological and physical sciences are willing to be counted in this year of our Lord 1957 as gladly affirming their faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

A well-known scientist who repudiated the doctrine of Christ’s resurrection wrote boldly: “I have no hesitation in telling you my own position in regard to the ‘basic New Testament truth’ of the ‘bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ,’ for I have no interest in concealing my belief.” If this is the way unbelievers feel, so much more ought believers to be bold in proclaiming their faith. The Christian Church today needs a great surge of testimony to the resurrection, for without this the Church of our day of unbelief will appear beggarly alongside the early Church, of which we read: “With great power gave the apostles their witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all” (Acts 4:33).

Confronted with this appalling mass of unbelief by highly trained men devoting their lives to the exploration of natural phenomena, a Christian believer must have a heavy heart. Yet there is no reason for a believer to waver in his own faith because of it.

Relevant Observations

In the first place, the replies give no evidence that the scientists who deny the resurrection have carefully examined the New Testament historical records which describe the event. Most of these men frankly confess that they have not given the subject serious consideration. Even those who profess to be Christians and active members of Protestant churches, yet disbelieve Christ’s resurrection, do not indicate that they have ever studied the evidence for the historicity of this event.

A second significant observation, and a corollary of the first, is that not one of these men offers any theory to explain away the New Testament confidence in the resurrection. One physicist did imply that he could believe there was a resuscitation of life, but of course this is not resurrection, as he himself admitted, and he did not couple the remark with a denial of Jesus’ death on the cross. Not one unbelieving scientist felt constrained to give a rational explanation of the Christian faith in the resurrection.

The third interesting fact is that the greater number, about 60 per cent, expressed themselves almost reverently in referring to Jesus Christ. I shall quote from two letters:

“I have only a modest familiarity with the story of the life of Jesus as it has come down to us. To me his message of brotherly love is of paramount importance. That this message should have come from a human conceived and nurtured in the natural way gives me courage to attempt in some small measure to follow his example. Whatever one may believe about immortality, we can be certain of one thing, Jesus lives on in the minds of men. He still has a tremendous influence on their actions.”

“To my mind the subtle and profound emotional meaning of the Bible story is not destroyed by questioning its literal truth. We are surely still actively participating in the personality and teaching of Christ; so he is in a real sense resurrected in each of us. To me this has much more religious meaning than the truth or falsity of the stories and myths that have been built up around his name.… I stand in awe of the wonder of the infinite. Awe and worship are allied.”

Teaching And Miracles Linked

When a man says that the teachings of Jesus set forth, even for men of the twentieth century, the highest code known to humanity, it must be emphasized that these very teachings of Jesus include much more than the laws of ethical conduct. Over and over again our Lord taught that he would rise from the dead (Matt. 16:21, 17:23), and his enemies did not forget this as the hour of his trial approached (compare John 2:19–22 with Matt. 26:61,62; 27:40). On one occasion when such a prediction was made, we read, “There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words” (John 10:17,18).

No respectable hermeneutical principle exists whereby the ethical teachings of Jesus can be separated from his teachings concerning himself—his deity, his vicarious death, his resurrection, his ascension and future return. If he claimed he would rise from the dead, and did not, either he was tragically self-deceived, in which case the trustworthiness of the remainder of his teachings is suspect, or he knew that he would not arise, but attempted to secure disciples by claiming that he would, in which case he was a deceiver of others—and in all the replies to my inquiry, no modern scientist has ventured to call Jesus a deceiver! How one wishes that this fine group of men, daily pondering evidence with such great care, would seriously consider the witness of Christ’s teachings to his resurrection and contemplate the consequences of rejecting either.

Worldly Wisdom And Unbelief

The New Testament provides no basis for any expectation that the majority of the intellectual leaders of any age will be believers in the great truths of the Christian faith. Indeed, our Lord himself asked, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8). The New Testament tells us that, in regard to spiritual things, the mind of unregenerate man is “darkened” (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). In the second chapter of First Corinthians Paul develops the theme that the natural man receiveth not the things of God. A condition of world-wide deception and apostasy at the end of this age is frequently set forth in the Pauline Epistles (2 Thess. 2:10–12; 1 Tim. 4:1–3; 2 Tim. 4:3,4).

In 1899 Professor A. H. Strong (Christ in Creation, p. 7) echoed what many intellectual leaders at the turn of the century were saying: “All nature is a series of symbols setting forth the hidden truth of God.… The world is virtually the thought of Christ made intelligible by the constant will of Christ. Nature is the omnipresent Christ manifesting God to creatures.” Today the idealistic and personalistic moods no longer dominate science. Men are not proclaiming nuclear fission as a revelation of God to modern science. Men are not being drawn nearer to God by this increased mastery of natural phenomena. No longer can we say, as did Frederick Leete in his interesting work, Christianity in Science (New York, 1928, p. 186): “Is it not a striking tribute to Christianity that the countries named as being the centers and mediums of scientific advancement are precisely those in which Christianity is most completely domiciled, and where its influence is at its maximum? It is possible to go further and to maintain the thesis that the degree of scientific progress made by each particular nation compares almost exactly with the type and grade of its religious development.”

Men Of Science Who Believe

While acknowledgments of faith in the resurrection among scientists were comparatively few, their communications nonetheless bear a priceless and powerful testimony to this supernatural event of nineteen centuries ago. Although it is not possible to quote each of these letters, I shall refer to four or five, to reflect something of this faith implicit in the minds and hearts of some men in the forefront of contemporary science.

An extended positive reply came from Dr. Howard H. M. Bowman, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1917; Professor of Biology at Toledo (Ohio) University since 1919 and Director of the Pre-Medical Division there since 1947; author of a number of books and member of many scientific societies. A member of the Episcopal Church, Dr. Bowman is an Anglo-Catholic.

He remarks, refreshingly: “Our two priests are devoted and self-sacrificing pastors, and I know of no one in the parish who holds anything but the central orthodox beliefs, and I think all of us firmly believe in every article of the Nicene and Apostles’ Creed. As a biologist, I cannot explain this mystery, nor would I attempt to do so. I have complete faith in the testimony of the biblical witnesses as set forth in the New Testament.”

From the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, Dr. Harold M. Morse writes: “I do so believe, as did John von Newmann, my colleague who died about ten days ago.”

The Director of the Alabama Museum of Natural History at University, Alabama, Dr. Walter B. Jones, responded in part, “Of course I believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ. I am an elder in the First Presbyterian Church here in Tuscaloosa.”

Note must also be made of the clear affirmation of the Nobel prizeman Victor F. Hess, Ph.D. (University of Vienna), former Professor of Physics at the Universities of Vienna and Innsbruck, Austria, Professor of Physics at Fordham University since 1938 and Research Associate of Carnegie Institute of Washington since 1940. Recipient of the Nobel Prize in physics in 1936 for the discovery of cosmic rays, he is author of a number of books in this particular field of science. One of the greatest physiologists of our generation is Dr. A. C. Ivy, of the Department of Chemical Science of the University of Illinois (Chicago Campus), who served as head of the Division of Physiology and Pharmacology at Northwestern University from 1926–1946 and then as Professor of Physiology in Chicago Professional Colleges, 1946–1953. President of the American Physiological Society from 1939–1949 and author of many scientific articles, his words are wholesome:

“I believe in the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. As you say, this is a ‘personal matter,’ but I am not ashamed to let the world know what I believe, and that I can intellectually defend my belief.… I cannot prove this belief as I can prove certain scientific facts in my library which one hundred years ago were almost as mysterious as the resurrection of Jesus Christ. On the basis of historical evidence of existing biological knowledge, the scientist who is true to the philosophy of science can doubt the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, but he cannot deny it. Because to do so means that he can prove that it did not occur. I can only say that present-day biological science cannot resurrect a body that has been dead and entombed for three days. To deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ on the basis of what biology now knows is to manifest an unscientific attitude according to my philosophy of the true scientific attitude.”

A Call To Christian Colors

Whatever a poll of scientists, or of any other vocational group, might reveal, the voluminous literature of unbelief requires the Christian Church to defend the resurrection of Jesus Christ against every foe, every contrary theory and every respectable argument.

We may give God thanks that no weapon has ever been forged, and that none ever will be, to destroy rational confidence in the historical records of this epochal and predicted event. The resurrection of Christ is the very citadel of the Christian faith. This is the doctrine that turned the world upside down in the first century, that lifted Christianity preeminently above Judaism and the pagan religions of the Mediterranean world. If this goes, so must almost everything else that is vital and unique in the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ: “If Christ be not risen, then is your faith vain” (1 Cor. 15:17). Who can repudiate the resurrection and at the same time profess confidence in the absolute authority of Christ’s teachings? Virtually everyone who has abandoned belief in the resurrection has simultaneously disavowed Christ’s virgin birth. If Christ did not rise from the dead, there is no seal upon the divine acceptance of his vicarious atonement as adequate for our salvation.

Let Christian ministers become aware of a divinely given responsibility for so schooling their congregations in the great unshakable facts relating to Christ’s resurrection, and so training their Sunday School teachers and workers among high school and college students, that they stand ready to meet every argument against this truth. Multitudes of Christian people who accept the resurrection are unable to give a reason for that hope which is within them. The Apostle Paul says that we are to “advance” the Gospel, to push on into the unoccupied territorities where the Gospel is not believed.

Someone should prepare a message directed especially to our contemporary scientists, clearly and logically setting forth the evidences for the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, beginning with a brief examination of the dependability of the New Testament documents. I believe that many scientists do not accept Christ’s resurrection as fact because they have never seriously considered the evidence. Christians may well say to these, and to others, “Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you that God should raise the dead?” (Acts 26:8).

Preacher In The Red

A SWEET VOICED DOCTOR

I had accepted an invitation to conduct an evangelistic meeting in a town on the Western edge of our Assembly. The Director of Music of the High School was an elder in the church and a brother of the pastor. Together they had prepared a rather elaborate musical program for the opening service. Besides a violin ensemble, there was an anthem, a quartet, a duet and a very sweet bass solo by a big handsome doctor of the town.

The friendly young pastor then proceeded to give me an over-eulogistic introduction. I felt impelled to make some response. I said, “This is the sweetest musical introduction to a meeting I have ever experienced. You are certainly fortunate in having such talent in your church. While the doctor was singing, I kept thinking how I’d like to have such a doctor for my own private physician.”

Hand went to mouth in an ill-concealed snicker over the congregation. As I stopped in wondering confusion, the pastor said, “Mr. Gray, he is a veterinarian!”—W. BRISTOW GRAY, Brownwood, Texas.

For each report by a minister of the Gospel of an embarrassing moment in his life, CHRISTIANITY TODAY will pay $5 (upon publication). To be acceptable, anecdotes must narrate factually a personal experience, and must be previously unpublished. Contributions should not exceed 250 words, should be typed double-spaced, and bear the writer’s name and address. Upon acceptance, such contributions become the property of CHRISTIANITY TODAY. Address letters to: Preacher in the Red, CHRISTIANITY TODAY,. Suite 1014 Washington Building, Washington, D.C.

Wilbur M. Smith has been editor of Peloubet’s Select Sunday School Notes on the International Sunday School Lesson since 1945 and is author of a dozen books. Formerly a member of the faculty of Moody Bible Institute, he is now Professor of English Bible at Fuller Theological Seminary.

- More from Wilbur M. Smith

Cover Story

Propitiation

Roger Nicole

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines “to propitiate” as “to appease and render favorable.” This word or its derivatives appears only three times in the King James version:

Romans 3:25, “… whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood …”

1 John 2:2, “He is the propitiation for our sins …”

1 John 4:10, “… God sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.”

The equivalent Greek word hilasmos and its cognates, however, appear some eight times in the New Testament and as often as 221 times in the Septuagint.

Pagan Use Of Terms

These words are not found exclusively in sacred literature but are fairly common in both classical and Hellenistic Greek. When used as religious terms in a heathen context, they are ordinarily charged with various unfortunate connotations, due to the pagan conception of the nature of the gods and of their relationship to man. We may mention the following:

1. The gods were viewed as very whimsical and temperamental beings who easily took offense and whose favor had to be curried by special gifts and sacrifices. Their good will could be bought by a “process of celestial bribery”, as Leon Morris terms it (Expository Times, LXII [May 1951], 227).

2. This appeasement was seldom conceived in a moral context. The need for satisfaction was not grounded in ethical considerations but rather in the arbitrary whims and tantrums of the gods.

3. There was little if any correlation between the gravity of the offense committed and the importance or value of the propitiatory offering.

4. In some instances the transaction was morally objectionable, occasionally revolting, as in the case of human sacrifices or of sacred prostitution.

It may be a matter of some surprise that the Septuagint translators and the New Testament authors could have seen fit to use words so heavily freighted with unfavorable connotations and apply them to the lofty conceptions of the Hebrew-Christian revelation. In this connection it may be well to remember that the sacred writers and translators had to use a mortgaged vocabulary, which they had to redeem and elevate in order to proclaim the sublime truths of the divine message. The words “God”, “faith”, “salvation”, “cross” and many others are examples of this very general process of regeneration of the language, by which common and even base words were instilled with new life and nobility in the pages of Holy Writ.

A Profound Difference

The profound difference between the biblical and the pagan usages of propitiation was emphasized by C. H. Dodd in a noted article in the Journal of Theological Studies (XXXII [1931], 352–360). He called special attention to the fact that in the biblical context God is often the subject of the action, the very one who provides the means of restoring the sinner to favor. In this Dodd’s conclusions, while not startlingly original, may scarcely be called in question. However, Dodd went so far in this direction as to set forth the thesis that in the biblical language the idea of “pacifying the displeasure of the Deity” is absent and that the translations “expiate”, “cleanse”, “forgive” should be substituted for “propitiate”. The last-named word would thus be eliminated from the English Bible.

Relevant Observations

A detailed discussion of C. H. Dodd’s position may be found elsewhere (cf. Leon Morris, op. cit. and The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, 1955, pp. 125–185; also R. Nicole, “C. H. Dodd and the Doctrine of Propitiation,” The Westminster Theological Journal, XVII [May, 1955], 117–157). We must confine ourselves here to the following observations.

1. While certain modifications in the circumstantial connotations of the words may well be assumed, it is very difficult to believe that the essential meaning of appeasement could have been systematically banished in Scripture. If such had been the intention of the Septuagint translators and of the New Testament writers one can scarcely see why they would have failed to choose other terms, terms which would have expressed rather than obscured their thought. The view that they could use hilasmos and its cognates without meaning propitiation is just as unlikely as the surmise that modern writers would use “propitiation” when they wish to avoid any connotation of appeasement!

2. While certain scholars have endorsed C. H. Dodd’s conclusions, many others can be listed in support of the traditional position. In the very recent English translation of Bauer’s monumental Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (1957), the meaning of “propitiation” predominates (cf. pp. 275, 376).

3. The substitute renderings “expiate”, “purify”, are less specific than “propitiate”, “placate”. Yet sooner or later the question must arise: “Who demands expiation or purification, and why?” If the answer be “God does, in the exercise of His righteousness,” we are back to the traditional view, entirely consonant with the carefully avoided term “propitiation”. If the answer be “Man does, for the satisfaction of his own moral needs,” we are faced with a view of salvation which is so greatly at variance with the biblical conception on so many points that one is truly surprised to see its upholders attempt to harmonize their position with Scripture or to try to explain away the implications of just one term like propitiation.

4. The thoughts of the demands of divine justice and of the wrath of God against sin and the sinners are extremely prevalent in Scripture. According to Leon Morris, the latter concept is met in over 580 occurrences in the Old Testament alone (The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross, p. 131). While in the New Testament this theme may be less frequently brought to the fore, when this is done, it is in terms perhaps even more emphatic than in the Old Testament. This will be at once apparent if one reflects upon the statements of Jesus on the misery of the lost in the other world. To attempt to by-pass this great mass of evidence is to do manifest injustice to the divine revelation. Furthermore, by undercutting God’s justice, holiness and utter abhorrence of sin, one undermines and brings into jeopardy the whole moral nature of God. Yea, even the love of God, far from being enhanced in this process, becomes degraded to a sentimental complacency, unworthy of any being with true moral fibre.

5. It is important to emphasize at this point that opponents frequently, and upholders occasionally, misconstrue the Christian idea of propitiation. This is the case when propitiation is conceived as a turning of God’s wrath into love, rather than the provision of his love in order that his wrath may be averted in full consistency with his moral nature. This is the case when propitiation is caricatured as in intervention of the compassionate Christ to shield the helpless sinner against the vengeful blows of God the Father, who, as a bloodthirsty tyrant, delights in the suffering and destruction of his creature. Conceivably, some occasional insufficiently guarded language on the part of conservative preachers and writers may have tended to accredit such lamentably inaccurate misapprehensions. It behooves the evangelical believer, however, to react with utmost vigor against such distortions, and to proclaim in its unsullied beauty the biblical doctrine of propitiation as the gracious provision made by God himself whereby the effects of his righteous anger against sin may be averted and the sinner may receive the blessings of his paternal love without infringement on his holiness and moral government. In this concept, far from having a disparagement of God’s love, we may perceive the very triumph of it: love of the Father, who gave his son for the redemption of man (John 3:16); love of the Son, who shed his precious blood for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28, Rom. 5:8); love of the Holy Spirit, through whom the priceless offering was made (Heb. 9:14), and who applies its benefits to the redeemed. To borrow a phrase from an able Roman Catholic exponent of substitutionary atonement, the propitiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ is “the invention and the triumph of the infinite love” of the triune God (cf. A. Medebielle, “Expiation.” L. Pirot, ed. Supplement au Dictionnaire de la Bible, III, 259).

Roger Nicole holds the Licence d’enseignement es Lettres Classiques (M.A.) from the Sorbonne (Paris) and a Th.D. degree from Gordon Divinity School. He is former president of Evangelical Theological Society. Since 1945 he has been Professor of Theology at Gordon Divinity School. He is presently preparing a volume on the doctrine of the atonement.

We Quote:

MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK

First Lady of Free China

The meaning of the Resurrection is Faith Triumphant, the Pledge Redeemed, The Cross Vindicated. Without Resurrection the Church would have died with the dispersal of the disciples there and then after the Crucifixion. With Resurrection the Christian Church marches forward toward Victory. This is what we see when we look forward from Calvary. What we took to be the shadow of death haunting our Lord from Bethlehem to Calvary proves to be, in the end, the Light of Life.—In an Easter message of hope to Chinese Christians in Formosa.

F. W. DILLISTONE

Dean of Liverpool Cathedral

Here is the Light which integrates all other lights.… Here is the Word which fulfils all other words.… He is the image of the God Who had never been seen by mortal eye. He is the Word of the God Whose actual voice had never been heard by mortal ear.—In Christianity and Communication, p. 47.

- More from Roger Nicole

Cover Story

Understanding Calvary

Harold John Ockenga

And they understood none of these things: and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they the things which were spoken (Luke 18:34).

I have a wonderful text. It opens up the counsels of the Trinity, the mysteries of redemption and the glories of heaven. Would I had the tongue of an angel to declare it. It is the truth of redemption by the cross. It, not the virgin birth, not the miracles of Christ, not the second coming of the Lord, is the very center of the Christian message (1 Cor. 1:23; 2:2).

Calvary was plainly foretold by Jesus, repeatedly and understandably. Yet the apostles did not grasp what he said. A strange incomprehensibility rested upon these disciples so that they could not understand plain language. Luke 9:31 says of Moses and Elias, “Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem”; Luke 9:51 says, “When the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem”; and now we have this plain statement of Luke 18:31–34. Matthew is just as plain in his record of the statements of Jesus concerning the inevitability of Calvary (Matt. 16:21; 17:12b; 17:22, 23: 20:18, 19). In spite of these clear statements, the disciples did not understand.

Calvary was foreseen and foretold by the prophets. No doubt is left by the writers of the Old Testament concerning the suffering servant of the Lord, the Messiah. Every sacrifice according to the law looked forward to this; the precepts concerning blood anticipated this; the Passover and the Day of Atonement forshadowed this; Psalm 22 and Psalm 69 described the sufferings of the Messiah; Isaiah 52:12 to 53:11 delineated these sufferings; Daniel 9:26 and Zachariah 13:6, 7 referred to it; yet no one in the time of Jesus understood the Old Testament prophecies concerning the suffering servant in the Messianic sense. Only at a later time did some of the Jewish rabbis teach that there would be a suffering Messiah (Messiah ben Joseph) and a triumphant Messiah (Messiah ben Judah). Not even the prophets themselves understood what they wrote (1 Pet. 1:10). The fact that the prophets searched to ascertain the meaning of their own prophecies which the Spirit revealed unto them is evidence that it was given to them by revelation. But this in itself is a proof that they did not understand Calvary.

Calvary was foreordained of God, and yet our text says that the meaning of Calvary was hid from the apostles. Did God deliberately hide it from them? If so, why? Was the hiding of this due to their own blindness because of sin, or was it a blindness sent from God? It was hid from them for several reasons: First, that God’s eternal plan might be fulfilled, namely, to make Christ Jesus our substitute in the satisfaction of the law. From eternity God the Father decreed the death of Jesus on the cross. He was the lamb slain from before the foundation of the world. Second, it was hid that men through wicked hands might slay the Prince of Life. Peter declared that if they had known the identity of Jesus, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. Their decision was an independent one, but it was embraced in the plan of God. Third, it was hid from them that God might turn their evil actions to good. God’s love matched man’s sin. The fall of the Jews was to be the riches of the nations, and it was embraced for this purpose.

Why They Couldn’t Understand Calvary

Luke declares that this was “hid from them.” A veil was over their eyes so that they could not understand. It is strange about our capacity to understand. This capacity changes with different ages. What you could not grasp as a child, or as a youth, you now may understand. At one time you did not understand the value of music and you refused to have any part of it, but now you understand and regret your decision. At one time you did not understand the value of financial thrift and resultant security; now you understand and regret your prodigality of youth. Once you did not understand fidelity in human relationships, but now you understand and possibly with deep regret.

When the Lord told his disciples of his impending suffering, crucifixion and death, understanding was hidden from them. Peter cried, “Far be it from thee, Lord.” He could not believe that Christ would be delivered up, mocked, shamefully treated, scourged and killed. For this reason he attempted to defend Christ in the garden of Gethsemane for he did not understand the inevitability of Calvary.

Calvary was hidden from those who put him to death. For this reason Christ prayed, “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” Pilate asked him, “Art Thou a king?” and when he condemned him to be scourged and crucified, he did so in ignorance. The Pharisees cried, “Come down from the cross,” but they did not understand why he could not come down. The soldiers and the thief mocked him and ridiculed him because they did not understand the meaning of his claims.

Only God the Father and Christ understood what was occurring on Calvary, with the possible exception of Mary of Bethany, who broke her alabaster box against the day of his burying and also of the penitent thief who caught a glimpse of heaven when he was on the cross and asked to be remembered.

The understanding of Calvary was granted to the apostles through the postresurrection interpretation by Christ and through Pentecost. As the resurrected Christ explained the necessity of his sufferings from the law, the Psalms and the prophets, their eyes were opened and their hearts burned within them. When the Holy Ghost came upon them at Pentecost and they were guided into the fullness of truth, all the strands of truth fell together into an harmonious whole. From that time on the apostles were in unanimous agreement on the necessity of the death and resurrection of Christ which constituted the Gospel.

Calvary can be understood and known only by regenerate persons (1 Cor. 2:14). Because of this, men do not understand Calvary today. For God to die on a cross seems ridiculous to the unregenerate. Natural reason cannot comprehend this. It wants to earn salvation. But these things are hidden from the wise and prudent and revealed unto babes. The human mind must be renewed in regeneration by the Holy Spirit if it is to understand Calvary. With such regeneration the problems concerning the cross vanish from the human mind. Students who are filled with questions concerning the goodness of God, predestination and freedom, the problem of human suffering, the dual nature of Christ, the understanding of the Trinity find that when their central question is answered, many of their other questions disappear. In my own Christian counseling I listen to the problem or the question that an inquirer has and then I turn the conversation to Calvary and the knowledge of salvation. Once this question is settled, it is easy to face other questions. When a person is regenerate, the mystery is no longer hidden but open.

How Believers Understand Calvary

Calvary must be understood in the framework of theology. There is a Divine reason for the cross. The cross must be understood in the light of God’s justice. The Bible declares that God spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all (Rom. 8:32), that Christ Jesus “abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances … that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby” (Eph. 2:15, 16), and that “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). Justice had to be satisfied and God reconciled. What this meant is beyond description and understanding of man. Holiness is an attribute of God. Holiness in motion against sin is wrath. This wrath of God was expended upon Christ on Calvary.

Mercy is an attribute of God. Because God loved, he was moved with compassion and mercy so that he gave his son, he sacrificed himself, and he suffered an indescribable anguish in the place of those he loved. Love found a way which could not be found by justice or by wisdom.

Wisdom is an attribute of God. Wisdom dictated that justice and mercy, holiness and goodness should both be satisfied and it found a way for them to meet in the cross (Psa. 85:10). There was no other way for such reconciliation, atonement and mediation than Calvary. If there had been, Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, “If it be possible, let this cup pass from me,” would have been answered by the removal of Calvary. When Jesus cried, “it is finished,” all the demands of the attributes of God which had been affected by sin were satisfied.

Believers give to the cross a great significance in experience. This experience is threefold. First, the cross is the way of salvation. It is the only way to come to God, the only means of salvation, the only bridge from sinful man to holy God. Thus, it is emphasized in the law, the Psalms, the prophets, the Gospels and the epistles. It is the essence of the Gospel which is presented throughout the entire Bible.

The second way of experiencing the cross is for sanctification or victory of Christian life. The believer accepts the cross as the means of his dying to the old man. He takes his position with Christ as crucified to the old nature and the motions of sin. By faith he reckons himself to be dead. Once the believer so accepts the cross, he may then be united with Christ in resurrection life. By the Spirit he is quickened and seated with Christ in heavenly places. Thus, the resurrected, glorified, reigning Christ may release the Spirit in the life of the crucified and resurrected believer, producing all the fruit of the Spirit which makes the believer like unto Christ.

The third meaning of the cross in Christian experience is as a way of service or of living. The principle was set down by the Lord Jesus when He said, “Except a com of wheat fall to the ground and die, it abideth alone, but if it die it bringeth forth much fruit.” The cross must become a constant way of life. The believer must voluntarily accept his position of self-denial, sacrifice and service for Christ’s sake. Insofar as he does this, he shall bear fruit, for “he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.” Only as the believer voluntarily follows the pattern laid down by Christ in his acceptance of crucifixion, is he able to effectively serve the Lord.

What Can Never Be Known Of Calvary

Though there is much that the believer understands about Calvary, there is much he will never understand. Christians will never know the depths of suffering which Christ Jesus endured on the cross. We know that he tasted death (Heb. 2:14), and what a death it was. No believer will ever die the kind of death that Jesus died upon the cross. We know that he endured the curse of the broken law (Gal. 3:13) and that that curse will never rest upon the believer. We know that he carried the wrath of God which was holiness in motion against the sin of humanity held back and dammed up through the ages and then released to overwhelm Christ Jesus on the cross (Rom. 3:25, 26). It was this that overwhelmed Christ and broke his heart. No believer will ever be able to understand the depths of such suffering through which Christ passed.

We can never know the full mystery of what occurred on Calvary. Remembering that Jesus was the pre-existing Son of God whose goings were from old, even from everlasting, that he was with the Father from eternity, that he was the creator of the world, we cannot help but wonder what happened when he cried, “My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” What happened in the Trinity at that moment? What happened in the two natures of Christ when he suffered the wrath of God in our place? How did God die on the cross? How did he take death into himself? If he had not done these things, how could the atonement have been made efficacious for the believers? When will the human mind ever understand this, and where shall we ever find language to express this? This mystery can never be known and will always cause us to fall down and worship before the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world.

We shall never know the fulness of redemption wrought by Jesus on the cross. This is suggested to us in the Scripture, and we may apprehend more of it when we get to heaven, but we certainly cannot know it now. What is included in “being able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge” (Eph. 3:18, 19)? In Calvary God exhausted himself, and it is impossible for a finite being to fully comprehend this action of an infinite being.

Witness Of The Disciples

But let’s ask these same disciples who did not understand when Jesus told them of Calvary what they now understand about it.

How about you, Peter? What do you understand about Calvary?

“I saw them take him away from Caiaphas’ hall when I was offended because he did not accept my defense of him by force. It seems incredible, impossible that I did not stand with him in that hour, but I did not understand. But now I know. I know that it was the Prince of Life they crucified. They ‘denied the Holy One and the just, and desired a murderer to be granted … and killed the Prince of Life, whom God hath raised up from the dead.’ I know that we are redeemed with his precious blood as of a lamb without blemish and without spot who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world. I know that he his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree, that we, being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes we are healed. I know that Christ hath once suffered for sin, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but quickened by the Spirit. I know that Calvary was the means to life.”

And how about you, John? You were very close to Christ. What do you think of Calvary now?

“I stood with Jesus through it all: through the trial in Caiaphas’ hall, through the suffering on the Gabbatha and through the agony of the cross. It was all so dark and confusing that I did not understand. Then, on the resurrection day, when he appeared to us and explained it, saying that it behooved Christ to suffer, and rise from the dead the third day: that repentance and remission of sin should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, I began to understand. Now I know that the blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sin and that the evidence of love is not that we love him but that he loved us and gave himself as a propitiation on our behalf. Now I look forward to the day when I shall stand with that throng, a glimpse of which I was granted, and shall cry, ‘Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by Thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation.’ ”

How about you, Paul. Do you understand the cross?

“Once I did not. Once I hated the Nazarene and I persecuted his followers for worshipping him as God because this was blasphemy. Once I stood by and watched men stone Stephen to death. Once I was crucifying the Son of God afresh. But one day I saw him: saw him in glory, saw him as he revealed himself to me with his wounds as I traveled on the road to Damascus. Now I know. I do not know him any longer after the flesh, but after the spirit. Now I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. Now, God forbid that I should glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. For now I know that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, and has committed unto us the Gospel of reconciliation.”

My friend, do you understand Calvary? Is Calvary a mystery to you? Are your eyes veiled? If you have seen him with the eyes of faith as he was crucified for you, the veil has been taken away and you understand. If not, pray at this season that you may have your eyes opened, that you may see the necessity of Calvary, that you may see what God has suffered for you, that you may understand the cross.

Harold John Ockenga is pastor of the famed Park Street Church in Boston, where he has ministered since 1936. After receiving the A.B. degree from Taylor University in 1927, he attended Princeton and Westminister seminaries, and holds a Th.B. from Westminster, A.M. and Ph.D. from University of Pittsburgh and numerous honorary degrees. He is author of Protestant Preaching in Lent, The Church in God and other works. He is presently chairman of the board of Christianity Today.

- More from Harold John Ockenga

Cover Story

Calvary Hill

Dorothy L. Sayers

Sequence 1 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

THE EVANGELIST: And when they were come to the place which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the robbers, one on the right hand and the other on the left.

1ST SOLDIER: Whew!… well, that’s two of ’em.

2ND SOLDIER: That Gestas is a sturdy rogue. We had to break his fingers to make him open his fists.

3RD SOLDIER: Yes—he put up a stiff fight. You’ll have a black eye, Corvus.

(Laughter)

1ST SOLDIER(vindictively): He’ll ache for it. We strung him out tight as a bowstring.

2ND SOLDIER: Come on, come on, let’s have the next … got him stripped?

3RD SOLDIER: Yes. Here you are.

4TH SOLDIER: This one won’t give trouble.

3RD SOLDIER: Dunno about that. He wouldn’t drink the myrrh and vinegar.

1ST SOLDIER: Why not?

3RD SOLDIER: Said he wanted to keep his head clear.

1ST SOLDIER: If he thinks he can make a get-away——

4TH SOLDIER: Ah! he’s only crazy. (Persuasively) Here, my lad—don’t be obstinate. Drink it. It’ll deaden you like. You won’t feel so much.… No?… Well, if you won’t you won’t.… You’re a queer one, ain’t you?… Come on, then, get down to it.

1ST SOLDIER(whose teiwper has been soured by the black eye): Kick his feet from under him.

2ND SOLDIER: No need. He’s down … Take the feet, Corvus.

1ST SOLDIER: Stretch your legs. I’ll give you king of the Jews.

2ND SOLDIER: Hand me the mallet.

JESUS: Father, forgive them. They don’t know what they are doing.

(His voice breaks off in a sharp gasp as the mallet falls. Fade out on the dull thud of the hammering)

Sequence 2 (The High Priest’s House)

NICODEMUS: Is your mind at ease about this matter, my Lord Caiaphas?

CAIAPHAS: Why not, Nicodemus?

NICODEMUS: I will not argue with you about the person of Jesus. His attitude at his trial has shaken me. I was ready to believe him a great teacher, a great prophet, perhaps the Messiah. I can do so no longer. He has claimed to be the Son of God—not in a figure, but literally—the right hand of the power and equal partner in the glory. That is either an appalling blasphemy, or else a truth so appalling that it will not bear thinking of.

CAIAPHAS: Are you saying that it might be truth?

NICODEMUS: I dare not. For in that case, what have we done? We have conspired in some unimaginable manner to judge and murder God.

CAIAPHAS: Just so. You have only to state the case to expose its absurdity. God is one, and God is spirit. Do you think there is a host of gods and half-gods walking the earth, and subject to human fraility, as in the disgusting fables of the heathen?

NICODEMUS: No.

CAIAPHAS: Then what have you to object to? Or you, Joseph of Arimathaea?

JOSEPH: Not the deed so much as the manner of it. Was it necessary, most Venerable, to lick the feet of Rome in public? admit the sovereignty of Caesar?

NICODEMUS: Was it wise to threaten Pilate with the Emperor? The power you invoked against Rome was still Rome.

JOSEPH: There is but one way with Rome—to slam the door against her; for let her squeeze in so much as a finger, and she will follow with the whole arm, till Jewry is no longer Jewry.

CAIAPHAS: Joseph and Nicodemus, let me tell you something. Jewry has gone for ever. The day of small nations is past. This is the age of empire. Consider. All through our history we have tried to slam that door. Jewry was to be a garden enclosed—a chosen race, a peculiar people. But the door was opened. By whom?

NICODEMUS: In the strife between the sons of Alexander, when Hyrcanus appealed to Rome.

CAIAPHAS: True. That strife brought us Herod the Great—the creature of Rome, who for thirty years held Jewry together in his gauntlet of iron. And when he died, what? New strife,—and the partition of Israel, with Pilate the Roman made Governor of Judaea. Under Herod a tributary nation; after Herod, three tributary provinces. With every Jewish quarrel, Rome takes another stride. One stride—two strides—the third will be the last.… I have killed this Jesus who would have made more faction; but for one pretender crucified, fifty will arise.… One day, the Zealots will revolt and the sword will be drawn against Caesar. Then the ring of fire and steel will close about Jerusalem; then the dead will lie thick in the streets, and the tramp of the Legions will be heard in the inner Sanctuary of the Temple. I, Caiaphas, prophesy.

JOSEPH(impressed): What would you have us do?

CAIAPHAS: Accept the inevitable. Adapt yourselves to Rome. It is the curse of our people that we cannot learn to live as citizens of a larger unit. We can neither rule nor be ruled; for such the new order has no place. Make terms with the future while you may, lest in all the world there be found no place where a Jew may set foot.

JOSEPH: Strange. You echo the prophecies of Jesus. But he, I think, would have enlarged the boundaries of Israel to take in all the world. “They shall come,” he said, “from east and west and sit down in the Kingdom of God.” Samaritans, Romans, Greeks—he received them all.… Is it possible that he saw what you see, and would have chosen to fling the door wide open? Not to exclude, but to include? Not to lose Israel in Rome, but to bring Rome into the fold of Israel?

NICODEMUS(shocked): Impossible! Israel can have no dealings with the Gentiles. He must have been mad to imagine——

CAIAPHAS(drily): Quite mad. It is the duty of statesmen to destroy the madness which we call imagination. It is dangerous. It breeds dissension. Peace, order, security—that is Rome’s offer—at Rome’s price.

JOSEPH(gloomily): We have rejected the way of Jesus. I suppose we must now take yours.

CAIAPHAS: You will reject me too, I think.… Be content, Jesus, my enemy. Caiaphas also will have lived in vain.

Sequence 3 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

(Excited CROWD-noise, out of which VOICES emerge)

VOICES: Who was going to destroy the Temple and build it in three days?… Looks as though the Temple ’ud see you out!… Come to that, why don’t you destroy the cross?… Split the wood, melt the iron … that’s nothing to a fellow who can overthrow the Temple.… Go to it, miracle-man!… Show us your power, Jesus of Nazareth.…

MARY MAGDALEN: Is it nothing to you, all you that pass by? What has he done to you that you should treat him like this?

VOICES: He said he was the Messiah.… King of Israel.… Son of David … greater than Solomon.… Does Israel get her kings from the carpenter’s shop?… or out of the common gaol?… Will you reign from the gibbet, King of the Jews?

MARY MAGDALEN: He would have made you citizens of the Kingdom of God—and you have given him a crown of thorns.

VOICES: Where are all his mighty works now?… He saved others, but he can’t save himself.… Come on, charlatan, heal your own wounds.… If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.

MARY MAGDALEN: He gave power to your hands and strength to your feet—and you have nailed his hands and feet to the cross.

VOICES: Are you hungry, are you thirsty, Jesus of Nazareth?… Where’s the water you talked about?… Where’s the never-failing bread?… Nothing up your sleeve now, conjurer? (Laughter) Loaves and fishes! Loaves and fishes!

MARY MAGDALEN: He fed you with the bread of heaven and the water of life freely—and you have given him inegar to drink.

VOICES: Charlatan!… Sorcerer!… deceiver!… boaster!

MARY MAGDALEN: John—can’t we get closer? It will be some comfort to him to have us near.

JOHN: I don’t know if the soldiers will let us through. But we can ask them.

(CROWDbackground)

CENTURION: Pass along, there! pass along, please!… Now then, my lad, stand back—you can’t come any closer.

JOHN: Pray, good Centurion, let us pass. We are friends of Jesus of Nazareth.

CENTURION: Then you’d best steer clear of trouble. Take those women away. It’s no place for them.

MARY VIRGIN: Sir, I am his mother. I implore you, let me go to him.

CENTURION: Sorry, ma’am. Can’t be done.… Corvus! Keep those people moving!… Now just you go home quietly.

MARY MAGDALEN: Marcellus—do you know me?

CENTURION: No, my girl. Never saw you in my life.

MARY MAGDALEN: Has grief so changed my face?… Quick, you Maries, pull off my veil, unpin my hair!… Look again, Marcellus! Is there another woman in Jerusalem with red hair like mine?

CENTURION: Mary of Magdala!

SOLDIERS: Mary!… Mary of Magdala!… Where have you been all this time, Magdalen?

MARY MAGDALEN: By the feet that danced for you, by the voice that sang for you, by the beauty that delighted you—Marcellus, let me pass!

MARCELLUS: Beauty? that’s for living men. What is this dying gallows bird to you?

MARY MAGDALEN: He is my life, and you have killed him.…

(TheSOLDIERSlaugh)

Think what you like—laugh if you will—but for old sake’s sake, let Mary of Magdala pass.

1ST SOLDIER: Oh, no, you don’t, my lass!

2ND SOLDIER: Not without paying.

3RD SOLDIER: Sing us one of the old songs, Mary!

SOLDIERS: That’s right!… Give us a tune.… Sing, girl, sing!… Make us laugh, make us cry, Mary Magdalen!

MARY MAGDALENE (distracted): My songs?… I have forgotten them all.… Wait.… Wait.… I will try.… What will you have, lads? “Roses of Sharon”? “Dinah Dear”? “Home Again”?

SOLDIER: (applauding): “Home Again”! “Home Again”!… S’sh! (As MARY sings, SOLDIERS and CROWD listen quietly)

MARY MAGDALEN(sings):

Soldier, soldier, why will you roam?

The flowers grow white in the hills at home,

Where the little brown brook runs down to the sea—

Come again, home again, love, to me.

(Here the SOLDIERS join in the chorus)

Pick up your feet for the last long leagues,

No more pack-drill, no more fatigues,

No more roll-call, no more bugle-call,

Company halt! and stand at ease.

Sunlight, starlight, twilight and dawn,

The door unbarred, and the latch undrawn

Waiting for the lad that I——

(She breaks down)

I can’t go on.

CENTURION: All right, Mary.… Let her through, lads … and the mother and the friend.… That’ll do.… No more.… Keep back, there.… Move along, now, move along.… Yes, Publius?

4TH SOLDIER: The prisoners’ clothes, Centurion.

CENTURION: Oh, yes. They’re your perquisite. Take ’em and share ’em out evenly.

SOLDIERS: Three pair of sandals.… Four into three won’t go.… We ought to have had Barabbas to make it square.… Who wants a cloak?… Me!… me!… You can’t both ’ave it.… Nah, then, don’t grab.… Fifty-fifty.… Tear it at the seam.… This tunic’s full of ’oles.… Gestas, you mean thief! Why didn’t you put on something decent?

GESTAS: May it rot your flesh, Roman dog. I wish it were steeped in vitriol.… Curse these filthy flies!

1ST SOLDIER: Temper, temper!…

SOLDIERS: Ah! here’s a nice bit of stuff—the Nazarene came from a good home.… Fair shares! fair shares!

4TH SOLDIER: ’Ere, wait a bit! It’s a shame to tear it up. It’s a lovely piece of wool and woven right through without a seam.

2ND SOLDIER: Toss for it, then.

3RD SOLDIER: Anybody got the dice?

1ST SOLDIER: Here you are.

2ND SOLDIER: Luck, Lady Venus.… (throws dice: laughter) Hades! I’ve thrown the dog. Here, Publius.…

(The dice rattle again)

3RD SOLDIER(humming to himself): “Pick up your feet for the last long leagues …”

MARY VIRGIN: Jesus, my son, I am here—Mary, the Mother who loves you. The pain is sore, my darling, but it will pass.

MARY MAGDALEN: Jesus, Rabboni, I am here—Mary the sinner who loves you. Kneeling at the feet that I once washed with my tears. I will kiss them very lightly, for fear the touch should hurt you.

JOHN: Jesus, my lord, I am here—John bar-Zebedee, the friend who loves you. We ran away from you, Master. We refused the cup and the baptism, not knowing what we asked, and the places on your right hand and on your left have been given to these two thieves.

MARY MAGDALEN: Oh, look and see if there is any sorrow like this! The Master and King and Christ of Israel—crucified like a common felon!

GESTAS: Hold your tongue, blast you! Ain’t hell’s pains bad enough without all that caterwauling?—Tell ’em to shut up—d’ye hear!

DYSMAS: Aw, Gestas, leave him be. There’s no ’arm in him. You and me was askin’ for it. Broke the law and got what was comin’ to us. But this pore blighter ain’t done nothing. (whimpering) Gawd! I got the cramps something cruel!

GESTAS: Christ and king—arr’h! a ruddy fine mess you’re in, ain’t you, with all your cant and pi-jaw? Slobbering about forgiving your enemies—I’d tear the throats out of the whole pack of ’em—and I’d start with you, you son of a dog!

DYSMAS: He’s loony, that’s all. Let ’im think he’s Goddamighty, if it makes him feel any beter.… You’re all right, mate, ain’t you? Of course you are. This ’ere’s just a bad dream. One o’ these days you’ll come out in a cloud of glory and astonish ’em all.…

GESTAS: T’chah!

DYSMAS: There! he’s smiling. He likes being talked to that way.… (in a deeply respectful tone, humouring this harmless lunacy) Sir, you’ll remember me, won’t you, when you come into your kingdom?

JESUS: Indeed and indeed I tell you—today you shall be with me in Paradise.

DYSMAS(after an astonished pause and in a changed tone): You’re not mad!… You’re … I don’t know what you are!… Don’t look at me like that.… I been bad—bad all through—you don’t know how bad.… Yes, you do; you know everything.… Near Jordan, I was born, near Jordan, and the water cool to the feet.… It’s a long way, but you won’t leave me.… Stay with us, Jesus, stay with us on the cross—go on looking at me.… I’m sorry—that’s selfish … keeping your head upright—like red-hot pincers in your neck.… Give me the pain—it’s all I’m fit for—but I think it’s you that’s bearing mine—somehow. I’m all muddled … and the water is cool to the feet.

(His voice dies away into a kind of muttering which sounds like delirium)

Sequence 4 (The Roman Barracks)

CHILIARCH: Well, Bassus, what is it? another chit?

ADJUTANT: Programme of the regimental sports, sir.

CHILIARCH: Oh, yes. I want to see that.

ADJUTANT: And by the way, sir—isn’t it about time we relieved those chaps on Gallows Hill?

CHILIARCH: Eh? Oh! Yes. How long have they been on duty?

ADJUTANT: Since 6 a.m., sir.

CHILIARCH: H’m. Have we got a centurion we can send? Who is there?

ADJUTANT: Well, sir—there’s old Proclus.

CHILIARCH: Proclus?

ADJUTANT: From Capernaum, sir. Attached for special duty during the Feast. Very reliable man, sir.

CHILIARCH: Right. Send him in.

ADJUTANT: Yes, sir. (At door) Orderly! Tell the Centurion Proclus he’s wanted by the Chiliarch. (Returning) The boxing-match should be pretty good, sir. I’d lay a few sesterces on Tiger Balbus.

CHILIARCH: Plenty of punch, but no style. Pompilius will beat him on points if he goes six rounds.… I see you’ve put Favonius down as a heavy-weight. I should have thought—ah yes!—this is Proclus, isn’t it?… Centurion, I want you to take four men along to Gallows Hill to relieve Marcellus and his bunch. Keep the crowd moving—and see that the followers of this Jesus don’t make a disturbance.

PROCLUS(startled out of his military propriety): Gallows Hill, sir—I—I—I—(recovering himself, in a stifled voice) Very good, sir.

CHILIARCH: What’s the matter, Centurioni? You look as if you didn’t like the job.

PROCLUS: Beg pardon, sir. You see, sir—I know the man.

CHILIARCH: What man? Jesus of Nazareth?

PROCLUS: Yes, sir. He was very decent to me, sir. Cured my batman.

CHILIARCH: (rather taken aback): I see.… I’m afraid there’s no one else available.…

PROCLUS: I quite understand, sir.

CHILIARCH: Old legionary, aren’t you?

PROCLUS: Yes, sir. Forty years service, sir. Drafted to the sixth. Seconded to King Herod’s Guards, sir—seven years. Fifteen years active service in Germany. Remained on as a veteran. Ten years regionary in Galilee, sir.

CHILIARCH: Good record.… Well, Centurion, it’s bad luck—but duty’s duty, isn’t it?

PROCLUS: Yes, sir. Sorry I forgot myself, sir.

CHILIARCH: By the way—the bodies are to be off the cross before sundown, because of the Jews’ sabbath. If they’re not dead by then, put ’em out.… All right, Centurion, carry on.… Damn it, Bassus, I hate ticking off these veterans. Forty years service. Old enough to be my grandfather.

ADJUTANT: Yes, sir.… Queer thing—that Jewish prophet—making an impression on an old tough like that.

CHILIARCH: Extraordinary.… Well, well! what were we saying? Oh, yes—the heavy-weight contest.…

Sequence 5 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

CALPURNIA: What’s the time, Flavius?

FLAVIUS: It must be close on noon.

CALPURNIA: (yawning): This is a very slow entertainment.

GLAUCUS: It’s not meant to be quick.

PHOEBE: These coarse peasants don’t feel things as we should. How long does it take as a rule?

GLAUCUS: Sometimes they linger on for three days.

CALPURNIA: That’s absurd! We can’t wait all that time.

GLAUCUS: Your man won’t last so long. Three hours, more likely.

FLAVIUS: The god will die, then?

GLAUCUS: The god is dying. He has the marks upon him—the pinched nostrils and hollow face, sunken about the temples, and the skin dry and dusky like parchment. The countenance of death, as old Hippocrates taught.

PHOEBE: I can’t see properly. It’s coming over very dark.

CALPURNIA: The colour’s gone out of everything—it reminds me of the day of the great eclipse.

FLAVIUS: It’s a sort of blight, I think.

GLAUCUS: Perhaps the gods are angry after all.

FLAVIUS: Hadn’t we better get home? We’ve seen all there is to see. The soldiers are looking at the sky and muttering.…

(Rattle of dice)

1ST SOLDIER: Publius, you owe me fivepence.… What’s happening to the weather? I can scarcely see the pips on the dice.

2ND SOLDIER: Better chuck the game.… How much longer are we going to stick here? I’m getting damned hungry.

4TH SOLDIER: What’s it going to do? rain?

1ST SOLDIER: I wish it would. Stifling hot, and not a breath of wind.… I hate this beastly climate.

2ND SOLDIER: Better down here than up there. It’s taken the kick out of Gestas, even.… Is the Nazarene dead?

3RD SOLDIER: Going home fast, I fancy.… I wish the relief would come.…

MARY MAGDALEN(whispering): John, John—is it the darkness? or is there a change in his face?

JOHN: Yes, Mary—there is a change.

MARY VIRGIN: My son is dying.

MARY MAGDALEN: The whole world is dying. He is going out into the night and has taken the sunlight with him. He is so far, so far that our voices cannot reach him. O love, O love—will you not come again?…

MARY VIRGIN: Hush, he is trying to speak.

JESUS: Mother!

MARY VIRGIN: Yes, dear?

JESUS: Let John be a son to you now.… John—she is your mother.

JOHN: Yes, Master. I will take care of her. I promise.

MARY VIRGIN: And I will love him as though he were my own.

MARY MAGDALEN: He is dying.… I could not believe it. But he is dying.

(Pause)

JOHN: It grows darker and darker.… All the people are drifting away.… Soon there will be only the soldiers and ourselves.… When everything else has perished, love and duty still keep watch.…

(Silence. Then, from a great distance, the sound of a small troop of men marching. It comes nearer and nearer till it reaches the foot of the cross)

PROCLUS: Squad, halt!

(MARCELLUSsteps forward to meet him and the twoCENTURIONSperform the usual movements for changing the guard)

MARCELLUS: Proclus?

PROCLUS: Yes.

MARCELLUS: I am glad you have come.… Squad, ‘shun … by the left, march!

(The first quaternion moves off. The tramp of their departing feet recedes to an infinite distance)

THE EVANGELIST: And there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice:—

JESUS: Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani!

1ST SOLDIER: Gods! what was that?

2ND SOLDIER: It startled me.

3RD SOLDIER: It was the Nazarene.

4TH SOLDIER: I thought he was dead.

PROCLUS: What did he say?

1ST SOLDIER: I don’t know, Centurion—he spoke Hebrew.

2ND SOLDIER: He called on Elias for help.

PROCLUS: Elias?

2ND SOLDIER: He’s a national hero, or a demi-god of some kind, I think. Ask the young man there, he’s a Jew.

PROCLUS: Young man, what did your master say?

JOHN: He said: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”—What horror could wring that cry out of him? He was always one with God.

PROCLUS: (worried): If there was anything I could do—consistent with my duty, that is——

JESUS: I am thirsty.

PROCLUS: Have we any water?

2ND SOLDIER: Ah! let be. Perhaps Elias will come to help him.

1ST SOLDIER: There’s some vinegar here in the jug, Centurion.

PROCLUS: Better still.… Dip a cloth in it, and hold it to his mouth.

1ST SOLDIER: I can’t reach so far.

PROCLUS: Put it on the end of my cane.… It’s so dark, I can hardly see his face.… Is he taking it?

1ST SOLDIER: I can’t tell.… I think he’s going.…

Sequence 6 (The Governor’s Palace)

PILATE: Claudia, Claudia, tell me—what was this dream of yours?

CLAUDIA: I was in a ship at sea, voyaging among the islands of the Aegean. At first the weather seemed calm and sunny—but presently, the sky darkened—and the sea began to toss with the wind.…

(Wind and waves)

Then, out of the east, there came a cry, strange and piercing.… (Voice, in a thin wail:

“Pan ho megas tethneke——

Pan ho megas tethneke——”)

and I said to the captain, “What do they cry?” And he answered, “Great Pan is dead.” And I asked him, “How can God die?” And he answered, “Don’t you remember?” They crucified him. He suffered under Pontius Pilate.”

(Murmur of voices, starting almost in a whisper)

Then all the people in the ship turned their faces to me and said: “Pontius Pilate”.…

(Voices, some speaking, some chanting, some muttering, mingled with sung fragments of Greek and Latin liturgies, weaving and crossing one another: “Pontius Pilate.… Pontius Pilate … he suffered under Pontius Pilate … crucified, dead and buried … sub Pontio Pilato … Pilato … he suffered … suffered … under Pontius Pilate … under Pontius Pilate.…)

… in all tongues and all voices … even the little children with their mothers.…

(Children’s voices: “Suffered under Pontius Pilate … sub Pontio Pilato … crucifie sous Ponce Pilate … gekreuzigt unter Pontius Pilatus … and other languages, mingling with the adult voices: then fade it all out)

… your name, husband, your name continually—“he suffered under Pontius Pilate”.

PILATE: The gods avert the omen.

CLAUDIA: This day is like my dream, Caius—this darkness at mid-noon.… Hark! What was that?

PILATE: Nothing, Claudia … there is nothing to hear.… Come away from the window.

Sequence 7 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

THE EVANGELIST: And when he had received the vinegar, Jesus cried with a loud voice:

JESUS: (loudly): It is accomplished! (softly) Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit.

THE EVANGELIST: And he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

(Earthquake)

And the earth did quake, and the vail of the Temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom. And when the Centurion, and they that were with him, saw this, they were afraid.

(Earthquake repeated, and dying away. Pause)

Sequence 8 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

BALTHAZAR: Centurion!

PROCLUS: Sir?

BALTHAZAR: For whom are these gallows erected?

PROCLUS: Why, don’t you know?… I see by your complexion you are a foreigner.… Two of the men are robbers. And the third is Jesus of Nazareth, whom they called the King of the Jews.

BALTHAZAR: Jesus, King of the Jews. Then the stars have led me aright—and I have found him as my dream foretold, by the tall tree on the hill.… I think I recognise you, Centurion, though it is thirty years and more since we met.

PROCLUS: Indeed, sir? Where was that?

BALTHAZAR: At the court of King Herod.

PROCLUS: I remember. You are Balthazar, King of Ethiopia.

BALTHAZAR: I am. And there is the child that was born King of the Jews, at whose coming the great star shone.

PROCLUS: (astonished): Is that he?… Herod told me to slay him and I refused. But you see they have killed him at last—and here I stand.… Son of God he called himself—and so I believe he was.

BALTHAZAR: King of the Jews; king of the world; king of Heaven. So it was written; so it will be.

PROCLUS: As he died, the darkness lifted. It is very strange.

1ST SOLDIER: Excuse me, Centurion.

PROCLUS: Yes?

1ST SOLDIER: A Jew called Joseph of Arimathaea is here, with an order from the Governor. He is to have the body of the Nazarene for burial. And you said that all the men were to be taken down tonight, so we broke the legs of the two robbers to finish them off, but as Jesus was dead already we left him as he was.

PROCLUS: Quite right.

1ST SOLDIER: Yes, Centurion. But that young woman is hysterical and clinging to his knees——

PROCLUS: I’ll come.… Good evening, sir. You are Joseph of Arimathaea, I take it. Very good.… Now, my girl, I’m sorry—you don’t want him left hanging there, do you? We’re going to take him down, and this kind gentleman will see him properly done by.

MARY MAGDALEN: Go away—don’t touch him! He’s not dead! Jesus! Lord! Master! Speak again! Tell them you are alive!

JOHN: Mary, Mary!

PROCLUS: Are you sure he is dead, you men?

2ND SOLDIER: He’s dead enough, Centurion. But a spearthrust will make sure. There!

PROCLUS: (angrily): What did you want to do that for?

MARY MAGDALEN: Oh! what have you done! He is living! See how the blood runs down.

PROCLUS: No, my poor lass! If he were living, the blood would leap—but this creeps dark and sluggish, clotting as it falls. He broke his heart, I think, in that last cry.… Excuse me, ma’am, but we must do our job—can you do anything with her?

MARY VIRGIN: Mary, my dear—come to me. There, there!… You will handle my son gently, Centurion?

PROCLUS: We will, ma’am. You are a brave woman.

JOHN: Mary—let me tell you a thing that he once said to us.… Are you listening?… He said, “The Son of Man is only a week-end guest in the house of death. On the third day he will rise and go.”

JOSEPH: Did he say that indeed?

JOHN: He did, sir. I do not know what he meant.

PROCLUS: Carefully, men, carefully.… Lower him by the knees and shoulders.… Have you the winding-sheet ready?

MARY VIRGIN: Give me my son into my arms.… I know you, King Balthazar. These are the baby hands that closed upon your gift of myrrh. This is the fair young head, crowned once with gold by Melchior, but now with thorns to be a king of sorrows. The third gift is yet to come.

JOHN: What was that third gift, Mother?

MARY VIRGIN: Frankincense.

THE EVANGELIST: Now in the place where he was crucified, there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid. There laid they Jesus; and they rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre. And the sabbath drew on. And the Chief Priests and Pharisees came together to Pilate.

Scene III (The Governor’s Palace)

PILATE: (abruptly): Yes, Caiaphas. What is it now?

CAIAPHAS: Excellency, that lying charlatan Jesus of Nazareth——

PILATE: I want to hear nothing more about Jesus of Nazareth.

CAIAPHAS: Something has just come to our knowledge. During his lifetime, it seems, he boasted that if he were killed, he would rise again on the third day. It is surely advisable that the tomb should be carefully guarded. Otherwise, some of his followers may steal the body and give out that he has risen from the dead—thus starting a new superstition, infinitely more damaging than the first.

PILATE: Well?

CAIAPHAS: I suggest that you order sentries to be posted.

PILATE: It has nothing to do with me.

CAIAPHAS: The bodies of criminals are Roman property.

PILATE: A member of your Sanhedrim applied to me for the custody of this particular body. I was happy to oblige him. The thing has now become a Jewish affair. Rome is not concerned.

CAIAPHAS: Excellency——

PILATE: You have your own guards. Take whatever precautions you think fit.… Slave! show these gentlemen out.

(A party ofSOLDIERSpasses in the distance, singing)

… “No more pack-drill, no more fatigues,

No more roll-call, no more bugle-call.…”

THE EVANGELIST: So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch.

Secular and sacred themes alike have been sketched by Dorothy L. Sayers’ piquant pen. Her writings have won her a measure of distinction as a dilettante Anglican theologian, although her religious conceptions and writings have sometimes been highly provocative. Twelve plays on the life of Christ, written for British Broadcasting Corporation in the colloquial language of England, stimulated wide debate. The eleventh play, “King of Sorrows,” from which the scene “Calvary Hill” is selected (and reprinted by permission from The Man Born to be King, copyright 1943 by Dorothy L. Sayers), caused even supporters to flinch and shrink from the Crucifixion scene. But the BBC’s director of religious broadcasting confided that Miss Sayers’ work had “forced many of us to the grim task of considering afresh the awe-ful implications of the two words incarnatusest.”

- More from Dorothy L. Sayers

Theology

The Resurrection

Gordon H. Clark

The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, or, if you wish, the alleged resurrection, is the most stupendous miracle on record. A dead body’s resumption of life, walking out of its tomb, eating and talking with its former friends for a period of forty days is a series of events that we do not experience very frequently. No wonder the foes of Christianity doubt it and pseudo-Christians spiritualize it.

Power Of Hume’s Argument

No one since the time of David Hume has argued more powerfully against the resurrection than he. Therefore it is not amiss to begin with a reconsideration of Hume.

Suppose, he says, that all historians should agree that on January 1, 1600, Queen Elizabeth died, and that after being interred a month she again appeared, resumed her throne and governed England another three years. Hume confesses that the agreement of all the witnesses on so many details would puzzle him. He would be compelled to believe that Elizabeth had died, he would have to accept the public circumstances that followed for three years, but far from having the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event, he would assert that the resurrection was merely pretended and could not possibly have been real. If, further, this alleged miracle were made a part of some religion, this very circumstance would be full proof of a cheat and would induce all men of good sense to reject it without examination.

The arguments against the possibility of miracles from the viewpoint of scientific mechanism are too intricate for the present discussion, and as a matter of fact Hume remains pretty well within the limits of ordinary observation. But if anyone think that the broader questions of competitive world views are more difficult for a Christian to answer, and that therefore their omission here is a sign of weakness, it can un-embarrassingly be asserted that scientific mechanism does not enjoy the widespread acceptance it did fifty years ago. And when it comes to a particular miracle, such as the resurrection of Christ, the range of Hume’s procedure is satisfactory.

Some of Hume’s argumentation can be immediately dismissed because it begs the question. He assumes, for example, that any religious claim is automatically to be regarded as erroneous. Historians and travelers may mix truth and untruth, but religious stories are pure, unmixed falsehoods. When, further, he writes, “It is a miracle that a dead man should come to life, because that has never been observed in any age and country,” and when he continues, “There must therefore be a uniform experience against every miraculous event,” it is clear that he is using for proof the very conclusion he wishes to prove. Obviously, one who maintains the resurrection of Christ cannot allow as a premise the assertion that in no age or country has a dead man ever come to life. To the extent that Hume’s argument depends on such infelicitous assumptions, it is definitely weakened.

Improbability And Probability

Aside from such material Hume insists that miracles are improbable. This may well be granted in the sense that the number of miracles, or alleged miracles, is much less than the number of ordinary occurrences. Of course, miracles are admittedly rare. But this admission does not imply the improbability of miracles in another sense. For although the probability of a miraculous occurrence at a random time and place is very small, yet the universe may be so constituted that the probability of a miracle’s occurrence at some time or other is very great. This possibility Hume neglected to discuss, except insofar as he works out elsewhere a nontheistic world view.

Hume continues by listing the suspicious circumstances of several miracles individually and then manages to produce the impression that the list as a totality applies to each. He remarks that all experience is fallible, and secondhand experience is more so; witness cannot be trusted and many alleged miracles are frauds. The more unusual the story, the less probable it is; yet it is the more believed because mankind enjoys tall tales. Then, further, he argues that since there is as much testimony for a miracle of one religion as for a miracle of another religion, and since all evidence in favor of one is evidence against the other, the witnesses for miracles cancel each other out, just as the witness in court who supports an alibi cancels out the witness who identifies the accused.

Flaw In Hume’S Logic

Aside from the fact that the last consideration is not the precise truth, for courts constantly manage to decide between alibis and identifications, yet the cumulative force of such a listing of objections is considerable. However, examination will show that the force is more psychological than logical. To the extent that it drives a Christian to produce detailed evidence in support of the resurrection, it cannot be disallowed. But with whatever literary repetition Hume embellishes his account, he is only begging the question again when he concludes, “no testimony for any kind of miracle has ever amounted to a probability, much less to a proof.” In effect he says, no miracle has a sufficient number of competent and honest witnesses in its favor. Thus by a series of selected examples and by a hasty generaliza tion, he hopes to avoid the responsibility of a serious historical examination of the resurrection of Christ. In spite of his reference to Queen Elizabeth—and note that he fails to explain the testimony of the historians—Hume has not studied the resurrection. His argument in reality is an argument against miracles as such, and it is only from the impossibility of any and all miracles that he deduces the falsity of the resurrection.

As was said above, Hume’s argument that miracles are impossible begs the question. He assumes the point in dispute. And particularly in view of his philosophical empiricism, Hume should have first proved that the resurrection did not occur, then that another alleged event had not occurred, and so on, and then only at the end should have concluded that there is “a uniform experience against every miraculous event.” Is it not reasonable, therefore, and all the more evidently reasonable in view of the later Hegelians’ attempt to rewrite history according to a preconceived pattern—is it not reasonable, therefore, to insist that the actual events be determined first and that the theory be made to conform to them?

The demand that the resurrection, or the alleged resurrection, itself be examined rather than ruled out beforehand has a facet that may go far to explain why its opponents rest their case on a general nontheistic argument against miracles as such. In the examination of any particular event the person who decides that the event did not occur is under obligation to give an alternate account of the history in question. Hume, as noted above, would have had to explain the alleged resurrection of Elizabeth and the remarkable agreement of the historians. Or, as a more modern example, anyone who wished to deny that Hitler committed suicide in Berlin would have to produce evidence that he escaped to Bavaria, Argentina or some other definite place. So too those who refuse to believe that Christ rose from the dead are under logical compulsion to give an alternate account of what happened. This turns out to be so embarrassing that Hume’s procedure is psychologically understandable.

Undeniable Historical Facts

What, then, happened? Well, it can hardly be denied, even by the most violent opponent of Christianity, that the Christian church happened. In the first century there were groups of people who believed, preached and were persecuted for the name of Jesus Christ. Second, it can hardly be denied that these people, who at first were mostly Jews, held their worship services on the first rather than on the seventh day of the week. These Christians claimed—their claim cannot be denied—that they did these things because Christ had conquered death, had risen from the tomb, and had been seen by five hundred of them. If now these claims are not true, in what manner may the undeniable history be accounted?

This is the question that is so embarrassing for the unbelievers, and it is embarrassing because their method precludes a consistent answer.

Historians And The Records

For example, Ernest Renan, whose Life of Jesus went through more than 140 editions, claims to be a scientific historian: “J’avais fait mon livre avec la froideur absolue de l’historien.… L’histoire est une science comme la chimie.” In this role he asserts that “the evangelists themselves, who have bequeathed to us the portrait of Jesus, are so far below the one of whom they speak, that they constantly disfigure him.… Their writings are full of errors and misunderstandings.… [they] do not understand, [they] substitute their own ideas for those they only partly grasp” (Chapter XXIII). But if the documents are so faulty, how can an objective and scientific historian conclude that the belief in the resurrection was the result of Mary Magdalene’s hallucinations? The end of chapter XXVI in the original edition says, “the strong imagination of Mary Magdalene here enacted a principal part. Divine power of love! sacred moments in which the passion of an hallucinated woman gives to the world a resurrected God.” The later editions have deleted this chapter, but retain an anticipation of the idea in chapter VIII.)

In view of the utter unreliability of the Gospels, how could historian Renan objectively assert that Mary Magdalene is the source of the resurrection stories? Why could it not have been Peter?

As a matter of fact, this claim has been made. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, who has a much better claim to the title of historian than Renan ever had, vaguely traces the Church’s belief in the resurrection to some unrecorded, unknown experience of Peter (The Apostolic Age, pp. 37–38 n. 3; pp. 48, 55–56); and to this McGiffert joins Paul’s visions of a spirit—not a man of flesh and blood, but a heavenly apparition (ibid., p. 126), thus emptying the word “resurrection” of its essential significance.

Now, obviously, these and all other alternate theories conflict with the written reports. The substitution of visions for a resurrection, whether they be Mary’s visions or Peter’s, conflicts with the evidence of the empty tomb. Is the account of the empty tomb therefore to be deleted as one of the numerous errors? But if the tomb, so carefully sealed and guarded at the insistence of the Pharisees, was not empty, would not those implacable enemies of Christ have exhibited the body and silenced the disciples? On the contrary, they bribed the soldiers to say that the disciples had stolen the body—at least so the record reports. Is this too an error, perhaps a fabrication of the authors? The story that the Pharisees are said to have invented cannot be true because it implies that the disciples suffered martyrdom for a gospel they knew to be false. Since the story cannot be true, we cannot, by reason of the same implication, suppose that the disciples invented the story and put it into the mouths of the Pharisees. Hence at least this part of the account must be true. But if this part is true, the tomb was empty and the Pharisees knew it.

How much then of the gospel account is true? It cannot be all false. Could Caesar’s Gallic Wars contain many true statements and the Gospels none?

No Consistent Alternative

One way to distinguish the true from the false would be to construct a satisfactory alternate theory. But this attempt has failed. Hume did not really try. Renan and McGiffert give impossible reconstructions. A still more radical writer, Corliss Lamont (The Illusion of Immortality, pp. 153 ff.), mentions several alternate theories and allows his readers to take their choice. This procedure follows a famous case at law. A man was sued for damaging a crock he had borrowed. The defendant offered three watertight defenses: first, when he returned the crock it was not cracked; second, the crock was already cracked when he borrowed it; third, he had never borrowed it.

The alternate theories—the vision theory, the swoon theory, the deliberate falsehood theory, of which one but not three may be chosen—fail to account for the later undeniable history. None of them can construct a consistent story.

The explanation of their failure lies in the fact that none of these theories results from an honest attempt to discover whether or not the resurrection actually occurred. They all proceed upon the hypothesis that miracles are impossible. Thus a nontheistic world view is made the criterion of history. Instead of examining the world to obtain a world view, the unbelievers use their world view to construct the history of the world. And the history they construct is self-contradictory.

But if the Gospel narratives are accepted as true, then (1) we have a self-consistent story, (2) the subsequent events are satisfactorily explained, and (3) redemption has been accomplished by Jesus Christ the Lord. Otherwise our faith is vain and we are yet in our sins.

Few Protestant scholars today are at home both in the history of theology and the history of philosophy. Gordon H. Clark is among the few. His writings, for that reason, bridge the chasm in the intellectual outlook of the mid-century man. He is Chairman of the Department of Philosophy in Butler University. His latest book, Thales to Dewey, appeared in January.

- More from Gordon H. Clark

Share

Festival In Moscow

Problem In Ireland

‘Bigness And Power’

Share

Share

Revival Of Confession

Birkeli Resigns

Balked By Sentiment

Church Offerings

Nigerian Broadcasts

Return To Egypt

Sign In Capetown

Share

Share

Indonesia Crusade

Resurgence In Asia

War Loss Claims

Share

Share

Historical Apologetic

Five Martyrs Of Acua

Fertile Ideas

Pulpit Master

Scholarly Commentaries

Splendid Tool

Practical Epistle

Tools Or Crutches

Challenging Call

Share

Share

Share

Share

Importance Of Scientific Faith

An Unmistakable Inquiry

Preliminary Observations

Four Out Of Five Waver

Unbelief In The Churches

The Command To Witness

Relevant Observations

Teaching And Miracles Linked

Worldly Wisdom And Unbelief

Men Of Science Who Believe

A Call To Christian Colors

Preacher In The Red

Share

Share

Pagan Use Of Terms

A Profound Difference

Relevant Observations

We Quote:

Share

Share

Why They Couldn’t Understand Calvary

How Believers Understand Calvary

What Can Never Be Known Of Calvary

Witness Of The Disciples

Share

Share

Sequence 1 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

Sequence 2 (The High Priest’s House)

Sequence 3 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

Sequence 4 (The Roman Barracks)

Sequence 5 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

Sequence 6 (The Governor’s Palace)

Sequence 7 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

Sequence 8 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

Scene III (The Governor’s Palace)

Share

Share

Power Of Hume’s Argument

Improbability And Probability

Flaw In Hume’S Logic

Undeniable Historical Facts

Historians And The Records

No Consistent Alternative

Share