Bricks Without Straw

Within Christendom there are two philosophies which are so widely at variance that we must ask whether they are complementary or mutually exclusive.

The evangelical believes that preaching of the Gospel and its accompanying reception by man involves a divine order of salvation. Any attempt to violate this divine order inevitably brings chaos.

The evangelical believes that the first step in salvation is individualistic, a personal encounter with Jesus Christ, in which man recognizes himself for the sinner that he is and turns to Christ and his redemptive work, accepting him as Saviour. The evangelical further believes that such an individual must then identify himself with the Church and in that fellowship with other believers work for the glory of God and for the advancement of his Kingdom. For this reason the evangelical makes a clear distinction between personal salvation, which is a transaction between an individual and Christ, and “joining the church,” which is the next step in God’s plan, and which he does because he has accepted Christ, and not that he might be saved.

But the liberal thinks differently. Writing in The Christian Century (Mar. 5 issue) Dr. Charles Clayton Morrison says: “There is no support in New Testament Christianity for this individualistic, moralistic, subjectivistic and mystical conception of salvation. Christianity is not primarily an individualistic experience” (italics ours).

If this is true, the entire book of the Acts will have to be rewritten. Peter, on the day of Pentecost, affirmed that “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved,” and continued: “Repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins … for the promise is unto you and to your children.… Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” In this record we find that whether Peter or Paul is preaching, the message is to individual sinners who need a personal Saviour. That regenerate believers were then immediately united to form the Church belongs to the sequence of events.

Dr. Morrison is even more explicit. He goes on to say: “Christianity is primarily a corporate religion” (italics ours). Much as we regret this statement, we are thankful that this philosophy is openly stated.

What is the greatest trouble with the churches today? Is it not that within their ranks there are so many who have never experienced regeneration? Does not the weakness of the churches stem in large measure from those who have “joined the church” but have never met Christ?

That intelligent and responsible Christian leaders should decry the absolute necessity for an “individualistic experience” before there is an effective corporate witness is to demand the impossible. No man can live like a Christian until he is a Christian and the act of affiliation with a church is not the means of salvation—it is only a right and necessary sequence to a personal surrender to the Lord Jesus Christ.

We deplore the necessity of taking issue with a distinguished Christian scholar and leader, but we must accept this challenge as one the Church must face. To deny the basic necessity of personal regeneration, so clearly affirmed by our Lord, and to substitute for this personal experience the act of incorporation into the life of the Church whereby some form of spiritual osmosis is supposed to take place, is to do violence to the biblical revelation.

To insist on personal conversion as the first step in the Christian faith does not lessen one whit the biblical doctrine of the Church. Nor does it in any way reflect on the importance and place of the Church in God’s economy. The Church is the body of Christ. She is the Bride of Christ and it is in this fellowship of the redeemed that Christians work for the ongoing of God’s Kingdom.

Does not a true ecumenical spirit require that we recognize all believers as a part of the Church? We believe that is so and that her banners wave wherever believers are found. But to assume that the Church consists only of the major ecclesiastical groups, and to those ecumenically active, is as absurd and as unecumenical as is the attitude of some Fundamentalists who affirm that they alone remain as defenders of the faith.

Controversy is unpleasant, but controversy has nonetheless alerted the Church against error through the centuries. Dr. Morrison has fired the first shot. He speaks of “Fundamentalist evangelism” as “distorted, shallow, inflated and an unbiblical conception of Christianity.”

Strange to say, the “truncated” gospel against which the article under discussion inveighs is part of the same gospel of God’s redemptive work for lost sinners for which the Church has stood historically. One can but wonder if the strictures against this resurgence of evangelism do not center in a rejection of the biblical message itself? The need to apply Christianity to the contemporary scene must not be made the occasion for rejecting the vital Christian message itself.

Dr. Morrison deplores the phrase: “The Bible says,” and exclaims: “What a travesty of the Christian faith this idolatry of a book called the Bible has been.”

Can this be answered? Ask the men and women who have made this Book their companion, who in simple faith have taken it as their guide and stay. We have never seen a person who has made an idol of the Bible, but we have seen Christian leaders who, lacking faith in both the integrity and authority of the Scriptures, spend their time and energies in secular rather than spiritual emphases. There are theologians who have lost their confidence in the Word. But many laymen are beginning to look at them much as they would at soldiers who have lost their weapons on the field of battle.

Dr. Morrison demands that “Protestantism should take its evangelism out of the hands of fundamentalism and project an evangelism that truly represents the Christian faith.” A good suggestion, already tried by a few liberals. Liberal “evangelism” may appeal to the pride of intellect and to the esthetic sense, but it is as helpless before lost sinners as a shorn Samson was before the Philistines.

Here is a challenge. Protestantism can well profit from a modern Mount Carmel. Let all the prophets of a humanized Christ, a bloodless redemption and an expunged doctrine of the new birth, along with a demythologized Bible, prepare for their “evangelism” in any form they may desire. Let them prepare their altar, lay on their sacrifices and call out to heaven from early mom until late at night.

Let those who believe in the blood-bought redemption of Calvary, the ugly fact of man’s sinful nature and the necessity of a personal experience with the living Christ, take the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God, and with the message of that Gospel preach to lost sinners.

Let the Holy Spirit do his work and let the world see on which message the fire of revival will fall! We will accept the verdict.

L. NELSON BELL

Of all the manuscripts discovered in the caves near the northwestern end of the Dead Sea in Palestine, none can compare in importance and significance with the great scroll of the prophet Isaiah. Written in a beautiful Hebrew hand on 17 sheets of leather sewed together, it consists of 54 columns. It is about a foot in height and 24 feet long. The clearly written text is not divided into chapters as is the case in our English Bibles, but into paragraphs.

Antiquity Of The Scroll

There now seems to be fairly widespread agreement that the scroll of the prophet Isaiah comes from the late second century B.C. There has been much debate, and the question of the date has been subjected to thorough scrutiny and inquiry. Comparison with other ancient writing and the studies of archaeologists have rather clearly established that the early date for this scroll must be accepted. It is at least earlier than the time of our Lord. The archaeological evidence is particularly strong. The monastery at Qumran near the Dead Sea has been excavated, and it is clear that the community was active at this time. It is not our purpose to discuss the methods by which the antiquity of the scroll was established. The reader who is interested in this subject may refer to the splendid treatment in Millar Burrows, The Dead Sea Scrolls (1955, pp. 102 ff).

What is of importance to note is that the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea is without question the earliest known extant entire copy of any book of the Bible. It is about one thousand years earlier than the earliest portion of any copies of the Hebrew Old Testament now extant. In the light of this fact we may well ask, What light does this important manuscript throw upon the text of the Old Testament?

The answer to this question is that for the most part the Isaiah scroll agrees remarkably with the text of the Hebrew Bible already in our possession, the so-called Masoretic text. In some respects there is a difference, but the difference is unimportant, being largely a question of spelling, and not affecting the meaning of the text any more than the differences in the spelling of such English words as “honor” and “honour,” “labor” and “labour,” etc. There are, however, more important divergences from the Masoretic text. In certain instances the scroll shows a preference for the reading of the Septuagint rather than for the Masoretic Hebrew. Thus, to take an example, in Isaiah 53:11 the scroll reads, “he shall see light,” and thus follows the Septuagint, “to show him light.” There are also other minor variations.

These variations are not too serious. Many of them may be attributed to the carelessness of a copyist. It may be, however, that there was some definite influence of the Septuagint and even of the Samaritan version. The sect living at the monastery at Qumran was removed from the orthodox Judaism of the time. Whatever its precise nature may have been, whether Essene or not (and to the present writer this question has not yet been decisively determined), the sect was apparently one that did not vigorously maintain all the tenets of Judaism. It is quite possible, therefore, that it may have held a looser view of the text than did the stricter groups of Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that the manuscripts from Wadi el-Murabba’at, which seems to have been a center of orthodox Judaism, exhibit a strict faithfulness to the Masoretic text of the Old Testament.

If, among the sects of Judaism, there may have been a looser view of and attitude toward the text (and certainly the Septuagint itself would support this view), we need not in the least be concerned as to the trustworthiness of our text of the Bible. The Isaiah scroll is a wonderful testimony to the accuracy of the Masoretic text, and its divergences are very few and minor. Here then is further witness to the fact that the text of the Old Testament is one upon which we may rely and whose teachings we accept with confidence.

Does the Isaiah manuscript have anything to tell us about the question of the authorship and the unity of the prophecy? As is well known, some scholars maintain that the prophecy of Isaiah in our Bibles is not the work of the one man Isaiah but, rather, of several authors who contributed to it. At the end of chapter 39, we are told, the section containing the genuine prophecies of Isaiah comes to an end, and beginning with chapter 40 we are said to be in a different world. For years it was held that the section beginning with chapter 40 was the work of a prophet who lived in the sixth century B.C., in Babylon, two centuries after the time Isaiah himself lived. The New Testament, on the other hand, clearly teaches that the prophecy in its entirety is the work of the eighth-century prophet Isaiah. Passages, which according to the dominant critical view are written by “second” Isaiah, are quoted in the New Testament as from Isaiah himself.

The Problem Of Division

If it were true that the section beginning with chapter 40 of Isaiah came from the sixth century B.C. and if it were also true, as many critics have claimed, that this author was the greatest of all Israel’s prophets, the question of course arises how it was that the name of this prophet has sunk into oblivion. How is it, then, that his prophecies were simply tacked onto the section containing the genuine prophecies of Isaiah, and that the name of Isaiah, who, we are often told, was a prophet of much lesser stature, came to be attached to the entire book? These questions are often ignored, but they cry out for answers. And, if there is a copy of the book of Isaiah extant which dates from the latter part of the second century B.C., it renders the answering of these questions all the more difficult.

When we examine the Isaiah scroll we are immediately struck by the manner in which chapter 40 follows chapter 39. Chapter 39 concludes one line from the bottom of the page, and there remains space for about eight letters. Chapter 40 begins on the last line of the page without even special indention. In other words, there is no unusual break between the two chapters. There may be a division in the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, but this division, if it really is such, comes at the conclusion of chapter 33. Why this division occurs at this point is difficult to say. There is little reason to believe that it has anything to do with the question of authorship.

The fact is that the Isaiah scroll supports the position of the New Testament and of those Christians who wish to follow the New Testament in what it says concerning the authorship of the prophecy. The scroll most emphatically does not support the position of those who maintain that there is a break at the conclusion of chapter 39. There is no such evidence.

Of unusual interest and importance is the manner in which the scroll demolishes the views of the German critic Bernhard Duhm. In 1892 Duhm issued his epoch-making commentary on Isaiah, in which he maintained that there were three principal authors of the book, first, second, and third Isaiah. There were in addition editors and redactors, and the process of compilation and revision went on until almost the time of Christ. Indeed, Duhm thought that the final redactor of the book worked in the first century B.C.

That this theory is now untenable is clear. If an entire copy of the book is extant from the second century B.C., the book certainly could not have been completed in the first century B.C. It is well that such a death blow has been struck to this particular theory of Duhm, for Duhm has had a tremendous influence in the study of Isaiah. If the Dead Sea manuscript does nothing more than cause scholars to abandon the views (or even some of the views) of Duhm, we can be profoundly thankful to God.

If a copy of the entire prophecy comes from the second century B.C. and if the so-called second Isaiah lived in the sixth century B.C., it is clear that the period of time in which the book reached its present form has been narrowed considerably. In other words, within the space of possibly two hundred years (if the “critical” datings are accepted) the compilation of the present book must be accounted for. When one considers the tremendous difficulties involved, it is almost impossible to do this. What happened to the memory and the identity of “second” Isaiah, of “third” Isaiah, and of the editors who took part in the compilation of the book? One who works with this problem will begin to appreciate the difficulty of any solution other than that of the New Testament. We may say confidently that the discovery of the Isaiah manuscript has proved to be a great aid to the view of the New Testament that Isaiah himself is the author of the entire book that bears his name.

Interpretation Of Isaiah

What does the new manuscript have to say that will cast light upon interpretation of the prophecy? We may note for example its reading of Isaiah 7:14. This is a much disputed passage. Is there anything that we may learn from the new manuscript with respect to this passage? It is interesting to note that in its reading of this verse there is no deviation from the ordinary Masoretic text. The word used to designate the mother of the Child is the well-known ‘almah. It is a word which is never employed of a married woman. There can be little doubt then that this word is the original, and is that which the prophet himself used. The new Isaiah manuscript in reality casts no new light upon the subject of this recently much-disputed passage.

There is one other passage, however, where the reading of the Isaiah manuscript is most interesting. It is the much disputed verse, 52:15, which is translated in the King James Version, “so shall he sprinkle many nations.” Anyone who is even slightly familiar with the discussions of this passage will realize that it is truly a crux interpretum. For the most part, those who do not accept the absolute authority of Scripture have regarded the translation of the King James Version as incorrect. On the one hand, some have maintained that the Hebrew word yazzeh should not be translated “he shall sprinkle.” On the other hand, many have felt the need for an emendation of the text. Numerous emendations, possibly a dozen, have been proposed. What does the new scroll have to say? It is interesting to note that the reading in the Isaiah scroll is the same as that in the Masoretic text. Here is further support for the interpretation “he shall sprinkle.”

In recent times some scholars have come out in defense of this time-honored interpretation. The matter is of great significance, for, as it stands, the text refers to the atoning work of the Servant. It sets him forth as one who performs a priestly work, namely, the sprinkling of nations in a purifying rite. Should this clear reference to the Servant’s priestly work be eliminated? The newly discovered manuscript says no. It supports the position of those who all along have wished to accept the Masoretic text as it stands. Here, then, is a point at which in a remarkable way the language of the prophecy has been vindicated against many attacks. It is, indeed, remarkable support.

Bearing On Criticism

There is, of course, much work still to be done in the study of the newly discovered manuscripts from the Dead Sea region. Some four hundred fragments of biblical books have been found already, and the amount of work that must go into fitting these fragments together and publishing them will truly be tremendous. The scroll of Isaiah, however, was almost immediately made available for study, and great credit is due to those who were responsible. It seems safe to say that certain tenets of “criticism” will have to be modified. On the other hand, those who believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God and hence believe the witness of the New Testament to the authorship of Isaiah, may rest assured that in this new manuscript there is further support for their position. Bible believers have not been compelled to abandon or to modify their positions. And this is what we might indeed expect, inasmuch as the Bible is the revelation of God himself.

Edward J. Young has pursued his interest in the Old Testament and in the Hebrew language in both the Old and the New Worlds. He holds a Ph.D. degree from Dropsie College, Philadelphia with additional study in Newman School of Missions in Jerusalem, Centro de Estudios Historicos in Madrid and University of Leipzig. His writings include Introduction to the Old Testament and Studies in Isaiah. He is Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Seminary, in Philadelphia.

Several recent articles in United States magazines have given the impression that the day of missions is nearly over, and that there is an anti-missionary spirit on the mission fields of the world today. Strong proofs have been cited in support of this notion. Nonetheless, as a Mexican who has served with a mission board for five years and has traveled in nearly every country of Latin America, I do not believe these articles give a correct analysis of the situation—for my continent, at least, and probably for others throughout the world.

Neglect Of Stewardship

Missions have been in Latin America for about one hundred years. At the beginning of their work there, missionaries hesitated to teach the people Christian stewardship, for two reasons: (1) there existed unfavorable circumstances created by the domination of the Roman Catholic church and its exploitation of the ignorance and earnings of the people, and (2) the missionaries wished to emphasize the biblical doctrine of salvation by grace and not by works. In many places, therefore, offerings were not taken, mention was not made of the people’s responsibility to give for the work, and funds for the operation of national churches were consequently having to be supplied through the missionary’s own mysterious sources.

Sadly enough, this policy was pursued for many years with the result that churches in time became accustomed to depending upon missions for their own support. However, as social and economic situations changed, and new missionary leaders appeared who realized the Christian irresponsibility in not teaching new believers the privilege of giving their first fruits to the Lord, there began a new movement which might well be called the plan of responsibility for the children of God. Such terms as “indigenous church” and “self-support” came into vogue as a consequence of this.

To implement the new plan many mission boards decided to reduce gradually the help they were giving to national churches. This brought difficulties, not for the ordinary believers, but for the pastors who often had to face real poverty. I know of families who suffered an economic depression to the point of not knowing what they would eat from one day to the next. In one conference, for instance, which had been called for the purpose of pushing this program, a pastor asked the question: “Brethren, is it right that a missionary have milk for his pet dog to drink each day, when I sometimes do not have a few cents to buy even a piece of bread for my children; and yet we are both in the same work of the Lord?”

This was not the case with everyone, of course, but it reveals that many injustices were committed against pastors who had faithfully served the Lord and missions in the past. The entire situation caused an unfortunate spirit on the part of some nationals—not ingratitude toward mission boards so much as opposition to their methods in “nationalizing” the work. Even today some pastors in Latin America earn only about $25 a month. Of course, the lower standard of living in these countries must be taken into consideration; nevertheless, the remuneration received by these hard-working servants of the Lord is often grossly insufficient.

Service And Salary

The economic situation moreover brought problems between one mission board and another because certain of the boards, which had begun work more recently, were paying the nationals at a higher rate than were the older boards. This caused something of an exodus of pastors from one mission to another, each believing that a higher salary would signify a reward from the Lord for faithful service in the past. Such pastors were judged by their own boards as unfaithful, carnal, and more interested in money than in the true work of the Lord. But now that I have seen the operation of the church in the States, I wonder—would it seem wrong to you, were you in such poverty, to accept the call extended by some other church or mission if that meant a bigger salary?

Of course this whole question of support on the mission field is a delicate one and has caused many problems and misunderstandings. But I do not believe it has caused an anti-missionary spirit. The nationals simply consider these problems inevitable and love the missionaries anyway.

Nationalism Not Anti-Missionary

In Latin American countries today there is a marked spirit of nationalism. Almost every nation protests inwardly or outwardly against foreign companies who own large proportions of the land. It is not unusual to find scrawled on signs, “Get out Yankees!” or something similar. This is only natural. And we know that nationalism is but the natural product of a self-awakening, growing nation.

However, it deserves repeating that nationalism does not mean an anti-missionary spirit. Just as the United States industrialists who exploit Latin American resources do not represent the Christian Church, so the extreme nationalists in Latin American countries do not represent the Christian believers of those countries. Christians of these lands are as grateful for missionaries as you are for the people who first told you the Good News and then fed and nurtured you in Christian life.

Today, and tomorrow as well, Latin Americans desire and need help from the missionary—in somewhat different terms and methods than what they are receiving at present. In spite of the great differences between Latin and North American cultures, perhaps the day is not far distant when missionary leaders throughout the world can meet with national leaders to seek a solution to the difficulties.

Maturing Of Nationals

The national church is coming to maturity. Its leaders feel that they should have voice and vote in the work. They want to be collaborators and not just puppets, and if there are any cases of anti-missionary spirit in Latin American churches today, they are on an individual basis, and are the result of personal resentments caused by this want of responsibility and independence.

Perhaps the greatest problem on the mission field today is simply a lack of understanding between the two groups, nationals and missionaries. Any observer will note that on the mission field there is a feeling of “we” as against “they.” The Latin, regardless of his actual status, is always on a slightly different level from the missionary; and therefore, there is not complete confidence on his part toward the latter. In fact, there are a good many reservations on both sides.

The nationals have resigned themselves to the fact that (as they see it) any opinions contrary to those of the mission must not be expressed if they do not want the danger of losing their positions through moral or economic pressure. On the other hand, missionaries often are not frank enough in expressing what they have in their hearts, because they fear to offend their sensitive brethren or appear superior over them. Identification of one group with the other, openly and in love as true Christians, is needed on both sides.

Toward New Understanding

Let me make four suggestions that might lead to better understanding between missionaries and nationals:

1. It is essential that all missionary candidates make a thorough study of the psychology and culture of the people whom they plan to serve, not only in general but of the specific area which is to be their field. Lack of knowledge and appreciation of Latin American psychology has contributed much to the problems between nationals and missionaries.

2. Since the work has now come of age, national leaders want to work as full collaborators with the missionaries. If mission boards truly wish to avoid misunderstanding, unfairness, and friction, they should formulate policies that give equal rights to all “citizens of heaven,” with ample opportunity for everyone’s views to be heard on a matter before decision is taken.

3. As funds permit, key national leaders from the different mission fields should be brought to the United States for brief visits. This may sound extravagant, but it would accomplish four important results: (a) leaders would be able to observe the operation of the church in the States, (b) they would learn to understand better the psychology of the Anglo-Saxon and his ways of work, (c) they would appreciate how a missionary feels in a strange country without a good grasp of the language, and (d) they would find out that money for missions, far from growing on trees, comes (to non-denominational missions at least) as a result of difficult semibegging on the part of the missionary. Such a trip would be an eye-opener to any national leader who loves missionaries and yet finds their ways at times difficult to understand.

4. In keeping with its increased growth and cultural development, Latin America needs missionary help today more than ever. Our thinking must be in terms of how we can make missions more effective rather than complaining that there is an “anti-missionary spirit” that must be retrenched. The fields of literature and radio, especially, are white unto the harvest. Missionaries must not desert Latin America now when only about 5 per cent of its 180,000,000 people are believers!

If any reader would visit the mission field to test the views that I have given here, he would be surprised at the high regard in which Latin American Christians hold those who have helped in any way to give them the message of peace.

In spite of the problems that still exist, it would be a sin to curtail the Latin American missionary program or stop sending help to countries where ignorance of the Gospel is so great.

Juan M. Isais is a native of Mexico. In 1951 he was graduated from Instituto Biblico Centroamericano, Guatemala. Since 1951 he has conducted weekly radio programs and served in evangelistic campaigns throughout Latin America. Currently he is assigned to mission responsibilities in New York City.

“From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men” (Matt. 16:21–23).

Peter came through with flying colors on this examination as to the person of Jesus. But he failed miserably in his understanding of our Lord’s atoning mission. For him there was no place for death in his Christology. To Peter death could mean only defeat for all that was involved in Jesus’ ministry.

That the apostle was not alone in this regard may be seen in an examination of the attitudes held by others with respect to the death of Jesus. To the elders, chief priests, and scribes it was merely the removal of another threat to their privileged position (John 11:48). To the Romans it was only the execution of another criminal (Matthew 27:15–17). To the Greeks it simply involved another foolish sentiment of an unlearned people (1 Cor. 1:23). To the multitude of Jews it was a stumbling block to their faith (1 Cor. 1:23). To Jesus’ most devoted followers his death was a tragic defeat for all their hopes and dreams (Luke 24:21). To all the crucifixion of Jesus was an act of martyrdom to his ideals. In varying degrees all these attitudes have persisted through the centuries even unto this hour.

But to Jesus his own death was the center of history about which all his words and deeds would revolve. To be sure, for many the meaning of Jesus’ death came into proper focus after the Resurrection (Luke 24:25–27). However, there are some who would still stand alongside Peter of long ago and “rebuke” Jesus and those who proclaim him when faced with the facts and implications of his death. His person, character, and teachings they embrace; but for them no cross, no Calvary and no shed blood.

A Voluntary Death

Since Jesus’ death was to him the crux of his ministry and the center of men’s faith, what, then, may we say as to the meaning of it?

That the death of Jesus came as no surprise to him may be seen in that six months before it happened he began to prepare his disciples for that hour (Matt. 16:21). Death had been a reality to him from the beginning. We may well surmise that even as a child he saw himself as the “Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8; cf. Luke 2:49). Certainly it was envisioned by Simeon as he held the infant Jesus in his arms (Luke 2:35). John the Baptist could have had no other thought in mind when he said of him, “Behold, the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). We do not fully comprehend the meaning of the baptism of Jesus until we see in it the symbolic foregleam of his death, burial, and resurrection. The burden of proof rests upon those who would avow that the full significance of Psalm 22 was not understood by Jesus from the beginning of his public ministry (Matt. 27:46; cf. Ps. 22:1).

But all this Jesus kept from his disciples until the pressure of the approach of his death made it necessary that he tell them plainly of his pre-determined end. Shortly after his conversation with Peter, Jesus, in his transfiguration experience, conversed with Moses and Elijah concerning his “decease” or exodus (literal translation) “which he should accomplish at Jerusalem” (Luke 9:31). Thereafter, knowing that “the time was come that he should be received up, he steadfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51), knowing what awaited him there.

This truth comes more into focus as, later in Jerusalem, we hear him say, “No man taketh it [my life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again” (John 10:18). Still nearer to that event, and in reply to those who warned him of Herod Antipas, Jesus says, “Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures today and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.… for it cannot be that a prophet perish out of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:32 f.). The time of Jesus’ death lay, therefore, not within the whim of Herod but within the wisdom of Jesus. And two days before his crucifixion he predicted the exact day on which it would occur (Matt. 26:2).

The picture of the voluntariness of Jesus’ death becomes even clearer as the hour of it draws nearer. Under the shadow of Gethsemane’s gnarled boughs, when Peter rashly attempts to save him from his arrestors, Jesus allows himself to be taken with the avowal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?” (Matt. 26:53 f., author’s italics).

A careful analysis of Jesus’ trial and crucifixion reveals that through it all he was in complete command, to die not as a martyr nor criminal but as a king. In the midst of his trial he reminded Pilate, who said he possessed the power to release or crucify him, “Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above.…” (John 19:11). And at his crucifixion, he caused Pilate to write in the languages of government (Latin), of culture (Greek), and of religion (Hebrew), “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS” (John 19:19).

But the climax of this truth is seen in the moment Jesus died. Matthew records that when He “cried again with a loud voice, he yielded up the ghost” (27:50). Translated literally we read, “He dismissed his spirit.” That is, when all was accomplished according to divine plan, Jesus said to his spirit, “You can go now!” This was a voluntary death!

Looking back from that juncture in time, we realize, therefore, that our Lord was not swallowed up in a swirling maelstrom of circumstances. Rather he walked with certainty and dignity to the cross as he perfectly did always the will of his Father. On the cross he refused the merciful relief of drugs that in full possession of his mental powers he might lay down his life as a sacrifice for the sin of the world. Having known no sin he voluntarily became sin for us that in his death the power of sin over us might be broken. Nothing short of this would have sufficed. Animals by the unnumbered thousands had hitherto gone to the altar as unknowing and unwilling victims. Yet, they were but shadows of the Lamb of God, the Son of man, who willingly gave his life as a ransom for many.

A Vicarious Death

A vicarious death simply means a substitutionary death. In his crucifixion Jesus was our substitute, bearing the penalty for our sins. This is seen in Jesus’ becoming the substitute for Barabbas. According to Roman custom, the Jews had the privilege of selecting one prisoner to be released for them at the season of the Passover. Knowing this, and hoping thus to release Jesus, Pilate asked the crowd whom they would have released unto them, Barabbas, a notable prisoner accused of insurrection, murder, and robbery, or Jesus. At the instigation of the chief priests and elders, the people chose Barabbas and called for the crucifixion of Jesus (Matt. 27:15–22). Thus, when our Lord died between two thieves he was actually a substitute for the sinner, Barabbas.

In actuality, of course, Jesus died not merely as the substitute for one man, but for all men (1 Tim. 2:6). This truth is clearly taught in the Bible. More than seven hundred years before that event Isaiah spoke of One who “hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows,” of One who was “wounded for our transgressions … bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes [bruises] we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray.… and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (53:3–6). Literally, the Lord “hath made the iniquity of us all to meet on him.”

Jesus’ vicarious death is the theme also of John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, the One bearing away the sins of the world” (literal translation). The words “bearing away” mean to take upon one’s self and carry that which has been raised by another. Thus Jesus became the scapegoat of the New Testament as he took upon himself the sins of the world.

Every man, were he to bear to his own death his own sins, would fall under the weight of the burden and be unable to carry them away. For this reason God mercifully raises our sins off from us and places them upon Jesus, the Lamb of God, who in turn carries them for us in death as our Substitute.

It is significant that a few weeks before Jesus’ death, Caiaphas, the high priest, had pointed out to his colleagues that it was expedient that “one man should die for (author’s italics) the people, and that the whole nation perish not” (John 11:50). John comments that Caiaphas had unknowingly “prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; and not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (11:51 f.). This word for is indeed significant, for Jesus uses it in explaining the purpose of his death: “I lay down my life for (author’s italics) the sheep” (John 10:15), that “whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Had the justice of God prevailed Barabbas, not Jesus, would have been crucified. But because his judgment is wielded in mercy, Barabbas and all other sinners may go free.

Jesus Christ was our Substitute. And as we lift our eyes to see him hanging on a tree, we must avow, “But for the grace of God, there hang I!”

A Votive Death

The word “votive” is an adjective describing that which is offered or given in consecration or fulfillment of a vow. The last words of Jesus before he died were, “It is finished!” (John 19:30). In the language of the New Testament these words have to do with reaching an intended goal, carrying out the contents of a command, or performing the last act required to complete a process. In John 19:28 we read, “After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst” (author’s italics). The verb in italics is the same word in a passive form of the word “finished.” Jesus’ intended goal had been reached, the command had been fully obeyed and the process completed. And when he had received the vinegar, he said, “It is finished!” and bowed his head and gave up the ghost.

In the Epistle to the Hebrews the author interprets the death of Jesus as the fulfillment of the new covenant which God had made with men (Jer. 31:31–34; Heb. 8:6–10:22). He pictures the crucified Son of God as the “mediator of the new testament” (9:15). Pointing out the insufficiency of animal sacrifice for man’s sin (10:4), he adds, “Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldst not, but a body hast thou prepared me … then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God” (10:5–7). That the will of God involved Jesus’ death for man’s sin is made clear by the author’s assertion, “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God” (10:12).

Thus we are carried back into the council chambers of eternity, where, in keeping with the redemptive purpose of God, the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world (Rev. 13:8). But this redemption had to be worked out in history. The Father had to prepare a body in which the Son could be incarnated. And in this body Jesus justified the law of God in that he was tempted in all things like as we are, yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). Still he was made to become sin for our sakes “that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2 Cor. 5:21). It was to this that Jesus referred in his Gethsemane prayer. But he drew not back from the complete will of God. Jesus was nailed to the cross, God “made the iniquity of us all to meet on him” (Isa. 53:6), and God thereby poured out his wrath upon sin. In short, Jesus placed himself upon the sacrificial altar as a votive offering for sin.

A Victorious Death

If the death of Jesus had ended with the cry “It is finished,” our hopes would be futile. Such an end would have been defeat indeed. But the glorious epilogue to the redemptive drama is one of victory. Three days after his death some women came to his tomb prepared to anoint his body with spices for permanent burial. When they arrived they found the tomb opened and an angel sitting at the doorway. Seeing they were afraid the angel said to the women, “Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said.…” (Matt. 28:5 f.).

“As he said …!” It was in the foreknowledge of Jesus that beyond the cross would be the empty tomb. And he had spoken of this in many ways. At his baptism had he not come up out of the watery grave? At the first unveiled pronouncement of his death, had he not said, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” (John 2:19)? And when asked for a sign as to his deity, had Jesus not given the people the sign of Jonah, “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40)? Yet, they understood him not.

They understood not that the victorious climax to Jesus’ earthly ministry would be in the resurrection. It was to be the basis of hope for all who should believe in him. “Because I live, ye shall live also” (John 14:19). He was declaring that assurance when he said to Martha, “I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

In this question lies the very essence of our faith. The preaching of the first century did not stop with the crucifixion, but went on to the resurrection. And so must ours! Without that glorious truth we have no gospel, no forgiveness, no hope (1 Cor. 15:14–19). “But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (v. 20). The “firstfruits” is the certainty that those in Christ may declare, “But thanks be unto God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ” (v. 57).

I Hold The Book

Here in my hands I hold the Holy Book.

Like silence coming after battle roar,

Now peace comes home, and all the storms that shook

The heart’s foundation are no more, no more.

Now unafraid, I watch the level length

Of shadows deepen into darkest night:

Here in my hands is quietness and strength,

Here in my hands is gentleness and might.

Though satellites may whirl in outer space,

And hearts may faint with fear, this heart of mine

Is confident. I hold the Book and trace

God’s faithfulness in every single line.

And though the midnight of the world be nearing,

I face the dawn, the day of His appearing.

HELEN FRAZEE-BOWER

Herschel H. Hobbs holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees from Southern Baptist Seminary. Pastor of First Baptist Church. Oklahoma City, he serves in the Southern Baptist Convention.

From the point of view of the average businessman, the New Deal launched America on the path of “creeping socialism.” By the mid-1950’s over one hundred “business sponsored” organizations opposing the New Deal’s political philosophy of interventionism began to appear. Many welcomed the name “libertarian” to distinguish themselves from the political liberals who accepted Big Government as a necessary instrument of social progress.

Although differing on many points, libertarians have, since their beginning, shared one common apprehension: the steady growth of government and the corresponding decline of individual responsibility and freedom. They have been driven by a very real fear, the fear that a government which controls the economic life of its citizens today will control their thoughts and souls tomorrow. To the libertarians, the “democratic process,” which many trust as an adequate safeguard against tyranny, supplies no sufficient guarantee against a tyrannical majority. They have read American history and know that the architects of our Constitutional system, who were aware of the danger of tyranny by the majority, tried to prevent it by specific checks which later political developments either weakened or destroyed.

Libertarianism And Religion

Three libertarian organizations that have had the most to do with the religious community have been the Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York; Spiritual Mobilization, Los Angeles; and the Christian Freedom Foundation, New York City.

All three organizations have been anti-statist but hardly anarchistic. (Professor Russell Kirk, author of The Conservative Mind, is the leader of another faction which prefers to call itself “conservative” rather than libertarian and tolerates more government authority. Thus, the age-old tension between freedom and authority divides the anti-statists.) All three are indebted for much of their economic thought to the Austrian school of economics mediated by Professor Ludwig von Mises and Professor Friederich Hayek and their disciples. Beyond that, these three organizations have followed different paths.

Foundation For Economic Education

Although sometimes mentioning God in its publications, the Foundation for Economic Education has not consistently risen above a humanistic basis, often implying that man is self-sufficient and capable of ordering his world by reason alone without guidance from other sources, especially government. This Foundation has championed an autonomous man and argued for freedom on the materialistic grounds that man in a free society produces more things and enjoys a higher standard of living than he would were government to interfere. The Foundation for Economic Education belongs to a wing of the anti-statist movement which champions a minimum of government. Occasionally, however, its antipathy toward government has been mistaken as a brand of philosophical anarchism.

Although the Foundation for Economic Education has included clergymen with teachers and other molders of public opinion in its activities, it has not concentrated upon influencing church organizations. Moreover, its policy has been to send literature only to those who request it. In short, it has had much less contact with churches than the two following organizations.

Spiritual Mobilization

Spiritual Mobilization, under the leadership of Dr. James W. Fifield, Jr., minister of the First Congregational Church of Los Angeles, with the aid of Dr. Donald Cowling, former president of Carleton College, has ventured a more religious approach than the Foundation for Economic Education. Spiritual Mobilization has published a monthly journal, Faith and Freedom, which has centered on the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence and has turned attention to the inalienable rights of man as a creature of God. Spiritual Mobilization has been thoroughly American in its accent, but less evangelical in emphasis than Christian Freedom Foundation. The full name of the movement significantly, is Mobilization for Spiritual Ideals, Inc.

Christian Freedom Foundation

Dr. Howard E. Kershner, a Quaker humanitarian who has served around the world in relief work, together with other religious leaders including Dr. Norman Vincent Peale, launched the Christian Freedom Foundation, which publishes the fortnightly, Christian Economics. This Foundation has as directors a large body of clergymen who account, along with the native pietism of Dr. Kershner, for the biblical and evangelical tone of the paper. This characteristic has distinguished it from the Foundation for Economic Education and Spiritual Mobilization. With the exception of Christian Economics there is very little consciousness of sin in libertarian writing.

Economics And Religion

Since the loss of secular freedom usually appears in the realm of economics, the concentration of libertarian movements has been upon economics. Increasingly, however, the intuition of many businessmen who are concerned about freedom has been that they must strike deeper than economics if they are to preserve economic freedom. Mr. Leonard Read, founder and president of the Foundation for Economic Education, may have been reflecting this trend when he stated that today a more descriptive name for his organization should be the Foundation for the Study of Freedom. One executive of a major industry recently made the statement: “All economic problems find their answer in the area of religious faith.”

This growing awareness of the need to search more deeply into the origin and nature of freedom is in contrast to much of the material sent out by the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce which is often content to contrast the large number of work hours required in Russia to purchase shoes, clothing and other consumer goods with the very few work hours required in America. It is important to recognize that free men produce more, and a free system results in higher standard of living; but is this the essential difference between Communism and private enterprise? Suppose men get bored with two cars in every garage?

The Gospel And Society

Nevertheless, libertarian exploration of freedom has posed some questions evangelicals should consider. The advice that ministers “preach the gospel” and ignore political and economic issues is palpably absurd. Christianity cannot exist in a vacuum. It exists in relationship to men in society and has implications regarding the actions of men in their economic, political and social situations.

What are the implications of the gospel regarding society? Many theological liberals have been sure that the gospel implies Socialism. Does it? Is the Bible on the side of private property or of community of goods? What is the function of government in the light of the New Testament? Should we try to do by government what God refused to do in the Garden of Eden: prevent man from making mistakes? What about the Robin Hood morality of taking from one group in society in order to give to another? Is this Christian?

Evangelicals who think about these problems will have some questions to ask libertarians. Is the purpose of freedom the pleasure of man or the glory of God? Is statism evil because it generates poverty or because it enslaves man and inevitably becomes idolatry? Can we stop on the level of moral and spiritual ideals in our search for the foundations of freedom? Can the dilemma between freedom and authority, which so plagues libertarians, be resolved without Christ who sets men free through the discipline of commitment?

In this dialogue, evangelicals have a ministry that goes beyond raising questions. They have a witness to bear to the Saviourhood and Lordship of Jesus Christ. They must share the libertarian concern about the political and economic crisis which threatens our nation, but they must also be uneasy about the note that is missing from most libertarian publications.

The need of government is usually discounted by libertarians because men are good. This was the same kind of reasoning that was followed by the social gospel of former years to a conclusion far removed from that of Spiritual Mobilization. The social gospel argued that men are so good that they can be trusted to be altruistic and to live co-operatively once the “wicked,” competitive strife for profit is eliminated from society. The social gospel found sin in the environment rather than in the heart of man. Consequently, it was easy for the social gospelers to believe that mankind could bring the Kingdom of God to earth by means of legislation. Social action comes out in about the same place, but for different reasons. Through the impact of neo-orthodox theology, social action has become more realistic about sin, but its hope of redemption is still government action and not divine intervention. Consequently, although some social action leaders have retracted their more extreme pro-Marxian statements, they are still committed to a policy of legislating Christianity into “the structure of society.”

Evangelicals know that there is but one solution to the problem of sin—the Saviourhood and Lordship of Jesus Christ. Evangelicals know that this is a disease that can be remedied only on an individualistic basis. Individuals cannot be changed by changing society, but society can be changed by changing the hearts of individuals. In their individualism, evangelicals and libertarians are in agreement. It does not take much imagination to see the possibility of that agreement widening to include many other fronts as libertarians become conscious of the terrible lostness of modern society, and as evangelicals become aware of the political implications of their gospel.

It is inevitable that whoever takes the quest for freedom seriously must eventually be led to Christ. When Jesus said: “If the Son shall make you free ye shall be free indeed,” he was speaking of freedom from sin, but this is a freedom which is a source of all other freedom and which acts as a leaven in any society. Without this grace no society can long enjoy political or economic freedom. Witness the failure of South American and Asiatic countries when they have tried to build political freedom on some other foundation. Weber and Tawney drew near to the truth when they developed the thesis that capitalism was a by-product of Protestantism, especially of the Calvinistic variety.

Freedom A Divine Gift

It may be heretical to try to use Christianity to save a politico-economic system, but it is not heresy to point to the fact that political and economic freedom are a gift of Christ and that unless men turn to Christ they will certainly lose both.

Dr. Samuel M. Shoemaker, Rector of Calvary Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, and a director of the Christian Freedom Foundation, relates a relevant experience in his book By the Power of God.

He found a delightful group of young married couples in Pittsburgh whose support of private enterprise far outran their interest in Christianity. The husbands were all executives and junior executives in the Pittsburgh area. When first introduced to them, Dr. Shoemaker asked them the question: “Have you ever stopped to think where America got her freedom? There is a Greek element in it, but by far the preponderant factor in freedom as we know it is our inherited Christianity.”

Dr. Shoemaker developed this theme at his first informal meeting with the group. The first meeting led to a second, third, fourth and a fifth, and then the Rector had to leave for vacation. In the fall, the couples reconvened, but not merely to study. By now they were ready to win others to a new way of thinking, and they did. This group of businessmen, with their wives, became the core of an evangelistic enterprise later known as “the Pittsburgh experiment.”

An evangelical who does not compromise with socialism has a greater opportunity to reach business communities today with the gospel than he has had for generations. But he must have some understanding of the economic crisis we face, as well as know the Christ who came “to seek and to save that which was lost.”

Preacher In The Red

THE SILENT CALL

While in school I was no different from any other student minister—I wanted a church that I could call my own charge. Finally a small church many miles beyond the city limits invited me to come one Sunday in view of a call. Filled with excitement and expectation I went, and gave them my student best. They set the next Sunday to call, and I was the only one being considered. The week which followed was a long, anxious one. The months fell away but no news from them. A few years later I was preaching in a town not many miles from that country church. After the service a lady came by and asked if I remembered her. I didn’t. She reminded me that she had been a member of that church and was there the Sunday I preached for them. I remarked, “Well, that was a strange experience. I felt sure the church would call me.”

“They did call you,” she replied.

“But I never heard a word from them,” I said.

“I know. I was the church clerk and they instructed me to write you, but I got to wondering what my husband would think of me writing to a strange man, so never did let you know.”

—The Rev. J. LOWELL PONDER, Karnes City, 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.

Irving E. Howard is associated with Christian Freedom Foundation. An ordained Congregational clergyman, he holds the Th.B. degree from Gordon Divinity School, S.T.B. from Harvard Divinity School, M.A. from Clark University, and is studying Business Administration at New York University.

Giving expression to a point of view which is becoming increasingly popular in some circles, Vincent Taylor writes, “More and more students of comparative religion, and of Old Testament worship in particular, are insisting that the bestowal of life is the fundamental idea in sacrificial worship” (Jesus and His Sacrifice, London, 1939, pp. 54 f.). In this view the sacrifice of the animal is necessary, but only because there is no other way of obtaining blood, the life of the animal. As Taylor says, “The victim is slain in order that its life, in the form of blood may be released.… The aim is to make it possible for life to be presented as an offering to the Deity” (p. 54). Death, according to this view, can play no real part, then, in sacrificial acts when such a view is taken to its logical conclusion.

Let us follow the trail of this reasoning from the Old Testament over into the New Testament. According to popular expression the use of the term blood “suggests the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and opened to our spiritual appropriation” (Vincent Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, London, 1946, p. 198). Being saved by the blood of Jesus is being saved by his life. The death of Christ ceases to have the centrality and the efficacy which the Church has universally attributed to it. Instead, his death becomes considered a mere incident.

The Weight Of Scripture

It is my observation, however, that the passages of Scripture which popular opinion claims as proving “blood” means “life” are out-numbered by passages in which blood clearly means death. In 203 out of the 362 passages where the Hebrew word for blood (dam) occurs in the Old Testament, blood signifies death by violence, much as in the phrase “to shed blood.” Thus we read, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen. 9:6) and “He that maketh inquisition for blood remembereth them” (Psalm 9:12). Over against this observation I can find but seven examples where there is connection of life with blood, and 17 where there is prohibition of the eating of meat with blood yet in it. (In 103 passages blood is used with regard to sacrifices, and these passages do not of themselves imply either life or death. They must be interpreted in the light of blood as a means of securing atonement—which in itself implies death.)

We need therefore strong evidence to substantiate current opinion before we accept the conclusions which gainsay the weight of Scripture cited above. What are we offered? The principal passage which adherents of this view advance is Leviticus 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life.” Blood, in this verse appears to have the meaning A. Lods gives it: “there is a ransom, a redemption, a death by proxy” (The Prophets and the Rise of Judaism, London, 1937, p. 294). Proponents also testify that in Genesis 9:4 and Deuteronomy 12:23 “the blood is the life,” with which must be taken the repeated prohibition of eating flesh with blood still in it.

Evidence Of Death

The writer insists, nevertheless, that these passages are just as easily understood when blood is considered the evidence that death has taken place. David refused to drink “the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives” (2 Sam. 23:17), but this is a highly metaphorical statement. Both Genesis 9:4 and Psalm 72:14 have “blood” in parallel to “soul” or “life”; yet in the first case when Jehovah says that he will require the life and the blood of man, he is holding men responsible for taking life, not asking them to produce it or to give it to him; and in the second instance the meaning of “blood” in Psalm 72 is that shown by similar statement in Psalm 116:15—“death.”

We see, therefore, that passages claimed as proving that “blood” means “life” do not in fact bear the weight that proponents of this popular viewpoint believe. None speak of blood as indicating life in distinction from death. Yet they all speak intelligibly if we understand blood not simply as “life” but “life yielded up in death.”

Those who equate life with blood ignore another important fact, namely, that in the Old Testament blood is commonly used metaphorically, as we already saw in the case of David. Their argument depends on a very literal understanding of such passages as Leviticus 17:11 and others. Yet over and over again we come across references to “innocent blood” or “his blood be on his own head,” which cannot be taken literally. Stibbs draws attention to the Hebraic use of “vivid word pictures involving ‘blood’,” and cites such passages as the one describing Joab who “shed the blood of war in peace, and put the blood of war upon his girdle … and in his shoes” (1 Kings 2:5), and the Psalmist’s idea of the vengeance of the righteous when “he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked” (Psalm 58:10) (The Meaning of the Word “Blood” in Scripture, London, 1947, pp. 10 f.).

Another objection to the view we are considering is that it overlooks the pronounced Hebrew stress on the connection of life with the body. So far were the Hebrews from thinking of an immaterial principle of life that they associated life in the age to come not with the immortality of the soul but with the resurrection of the body. It is most unlikely, then, that they would think of the life of the animal after slaughter. We are far from the practical Hebrew turn of mind when we read of “soul-substance” (with Oesterley and E. O. James), or of “blood” suggesting “the thought of life, dedicated, offered, transformed, and open to our spiritual appropriation” (with Vincent Taylor). Stibbs is much nearer the mark when he sums up in the words “Blood shed stands, therefore, not for the release of life from the burden of the flesh, but for the bringing to an end of life in the flesh. It is a witness to physical death, not an evidence of spiritual survival.”

The Means Of Atonement

Where atonement is not brought about by the blood of sacrifices it is effected by things that signify death rather than life. (There are passages where it is effected by gold and the like [e.g., Num. 31:50], which do not obviously point to either life or death. But I pass over such as irrelevant to our present inquiry.) Moses in Exodus 32:30–32 tried to make atonement for the sin of the people by asking God to blot his name out of the book which He has written. Phinehas made atonement by slaying Zimri and Cozbi (Num. 25:13). David made atonement by delivering up seven descendants of Saul to be hanged by the Gibeonites (2 Sam. 21:1–9). The heifer was slain to avert punishment after murder had been committed by persons unknown (Deut. 21:1–9). The principle of blood atonement is that the pollution brought about by blood can be atoned only by the blood of him that shed it (Num. 35:33). But in each of these passages atonement is made or contemplated with no view to a presentation of life to God. It is the termination of life, the infliction of death that atones. Far from any symbol of life being presented to God, Saul’s descendants were hanged and the heifer killed by breaking its neck.

Usually when atonement is spoken of in connection with sacrifice, it is said to be effected by the sacrifice as a whole, rather than by any one part of it. Sometimes atonement is mentioned in connection with the blood, yet sometimes also it is attached to some other part of the ritual, like the laying on of hands (Lev. 1:4) or the burning of the fat (Lev. 4:26). This is natural enough if it is the whole offering which atones, but it is a very strange way to put it if the essence of atonement is the offering of life contained in the blood.

Sometimes it is impossible to see a reference to blood, as in Exodus 29:33, where the reference is to the carcass from which the blood has been drained, (cf. also, Leviticus 10:17). In these cases, however, we are always aware that atonement must be through the death of the animal; there seems no room for the idea of atonement through life. The blood of sacrifices points us to the death of a victim. The death was the important thing, and the blood symbolizes this death.

Life Violently Taken

Our conclusion from all this is that the evidence afforded by the term “blood” used in the Old Testament would indicate that it signifies life violently taken rather than the continued presence of life available for new functions.

In the New Testament the largest group of passages containing the word “blood” refers to violent death, just as we saw in the Old Testament. (Cf. Acts 22:20; Rev. 6:10, for typical examples.)

Quite often there are references to the blood of Jesus which show that death and not life is in mind. For example, in Romans 5:9 we are said to be “justified by his blood” and “saved from the wrath through him.” This is parallel to “reconciled … through the death of his Son” and “saved by his life” in the next verse, and follows references to Christ’s dying in the three verses preceding 9. It does not seem possible to resist the conclusion that “his blood” refers to the death of Christ.

In Hebrews 9:14 f. we read, “How much more shall the blood of Christ … cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death having taken place.…” It is hard to envisage a reason for interpreting “the blood” in a sense other than that given by the words which follow: “a death having taken place.” So in Hebrews 12:24 we read of coming to “Jesus the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel.” The blood of Jesus is contrasted with that of Abel, both pointing to death. And so it is with Hebrews 13:11 f. that we see the comparison made between the sin offering and the blood of Jesus, the point being not the presentation of the blood, but the burning of the carcass outside the camp. It is the death of the animal, and not the presentation of life that is seen here, and again the sacrificial illustration points once more to the death of Jesus.

From all of this a consistent picture emerges, namely, that blood points us primarily to the infliction of death. We have seen passages where one might possibly interpret blood as signifying life, but even these yield to better sense when the word is interpreted according to wider biblical usage and understood to mean “life given up in death.” There seems no reason, therefore, to dispute the dictum of J. Behm: “ ‘Blood of Christ’ is like ‘cross,’ only another, clearer expression for the death of Christ in its salvation meaning.”

Leon Morris is Vice-Principal of Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He holds the Th.M. and Ph.D. degrees. In this article he handles a theme treated more fully in his recent book The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (Eerdmans, 1955).

Someone has said, “The only hope of Christianity is in the rehabilitation of Pauline theology. It is back to an incarnate Christ and the atoning Blood, or it is on to atheism and despair.” This is very fine, and doubtless would command general agreement among evangelical Christians. Our business, it would be said, is indeed to recall the Church to the faith once delivered to the saints. What is not so clear is how the content of that faith is to be defined, especially in its moral implications. Many are convinced that, for various reasons, the primacy of the ethical basis of the Gospel is in jeopardy today, and that evangelical Christians themselves need to be recalled to a more truly scriptural position.

This does not mean that the Church’s witness has deteriorated to a barren and lifeless orthodoxy. Indeed, there is no doubt that evangelical witness is intensely active. Rarely has the Church been so magnificently equipped, or so thoroughly up to date in methods. However, whether with all our streamlined techniques we have achieved as much as our forefathers accomplished without them is a question. Ours is an era of campaigns, missions, crusades, fruitful beyond doubt; and yet the age of our forefathers was the age of revival movements that left their mark upon nations and enabled the Church to speak with authority.

The Missing Note

Is there something lacking, then, in the contemporary evangelical testimony? We believe that a definite emphasis has been lost. Once the chief concern of spiritual work was the creation and upbuilding of Christian character. The great devotional literature of past generations in Scotland reveals something solid and substantial in the Christian experience of former days. That there were giants in the earth in those days is not surprising when we realize that Scotland’s sons were reared on classics like Boston’s Fourfold State and Guthrie’s Saving Interest, and that such titles were household words in almost every humble home in the land.

The evangelical piety, born of such influence, laid inflexible demands for the highest standards of Christian behavior, for probity of life, and, for uncompromising honor and integrity. We look in vain for such qualities today and are in danger of becoming content with a kind of spiritual adolescence that scarcely commends itself to intelligent people. Paul speaks in Ephesians of the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. Words like these lay upon us the duty of growing up, becoming men, and putting away childish things. We are suffering in our churches and fellowships from Christians who refuse to grow up into maturity and consequently are unable, as well as unwilling, to engage in the serious and urgent business of Christian witness and the discipline of prayer. Lack of depth and quality prevails.

How has this situation developed and what is the answer to it? Doubtless there have been several contributory causes. We would like to point out two in particular, before attempting to answer the problem.

The New Antinomianism

The first may be expressed in historical terms. The Church has from time to time been exercised and the purity of her faith imperiled by the heresy of antinomianism. And when the moral imperatives of the Gospel of grace become obscured, in the way suggested above, antinomianism in one or another of its forms has begun to undermine the vitality of its witness. As far back as the revival movements of the eighteenth century, which, according to historians, saved England from revolution, a significant trend may be traced that seems to have repeated itself frequently in Church history. When the glow and spiritual quickening of these early revivals had worn off, a slow hardening and petrifying of spiritual life began that, aided by the growing spirit of rationalism, gradually discredited the supernatural in religion and ousted it from its central place in the Gospel. The Christian faith became little more than an ethical system. The Gospel of the grace of God began to be eclipsed.

In the nineteenth century, the pendulum duly swung to the other extreme. Grace was recovered and supernatural religion came into its own again, but the reaction was such that men were saying, in opposition to previous moralistic tendencies, “Good works are useless; it is not what you do, but what you believe that is important.” This serious misunderstanding was furthered by misinterpretations of such words as “Ye are not under law but under grace,” which failed to understand that freedom from the law means to be “enlawed” inexorably to Christ. Ethical considerations became confused and ambiguous, and Christian behavior lost the supreme place given it in the New Testament.

The same process is being repeated in twentieth century evangelical reaction against nominal, moralistic forms of Christianity. As a result, a false antithesis between faith and works has come into being, giving rise to dangerous misunderstandings of, and confusion about, the true nature of biblical faith. Not that Christian behavior is “out” necessarily, but a different emphasis and definition, generally negative, have come about so that to many today Christian conduct is understood as the abstention from the more overt forms of worldliness. By such defective standards is Christian orthodoxy being measured and judged. Now, to be sure, evangelicals have maintained a more or less consistent witness against the recognizably outer forms of worldliness, such as certain kinds of entertainment and amusement. This doubtless has been necessary in a world that seems to have gone pleasure-mad; but there has been no corresponding thoroughness in dealing with the sins that blight and mar Christian life and fellowship: viz., strifes and envyings, petty animosities and jealousies, unholy ambitions, jockeyings for position, and secret intrigues, which all too often exist in Christian circles. These would indicate that our ethical values in the light of the Gospel are in jeopardy. That such “religion without morals” exists today no one deeply involved in Christian work would deny; and ugly thing that it is, it has contributed more perhaps than any other single factor to the discrediting of our distinctive testimony.

The Cult Of Frivolity

Another and very different trend also has contributed to and accentuated this phenomenon of “religion without morals.” There has emerged in our time an evangelical pattern that finds expression in lightsome, frolicsome, superficial Christianity, characterized by sentimental religious jazz and tinkling pianos. We are living through a time in which the cult of frivolity and entertainment bids fair to become the major factor in evangelical life when patter and humorous anecdote are the order of the day and platform jokesters are in danger of turning the pulpit into a variety stage. Comparing this frothy adulteration of the faith even at its best with the massive witness of our Puritan and Covenanting forefathers, one becomes aware why the present generation of Christians comes short of the high standards of the past.

But why, in fact, does this “pattern” tend to produce a “religion without morals?” The reason is this: Its emphasis is laid upon (subjective) experience, whereas our forefathers laid it upon character. The moral values of the faith have been overshadowed by the psychological, and this has undoubtedly led to a greater concern about happiness and “fulfillment” than character and conduct. (One has only to examine contemporary evangelical hymnology to see how true this is.) It is an eloquent commentary on the situation that in our churches today there are large numbers of Christians preoccupied, not to say obsessed, with the search for happiness. What they have not realized is that God is far more concerned with our sin than with our satisfaction; that the Gospel is not psychology but salvation; and that Christ died not primarily to make men happy but to make them holy. It needs to be reiterated most unambiguously that the central note in apostolic preaching is not “Jesus can satisfy the heart,” but “Christ died for our sins.” These two phrases in reality express the fundamental difference of emphasis between the new and the old theologies.

The Differing Aims

Actually, we are dealing with two radically different, if not opposing, aims. Modern preoccupations have inclined us to make happiness and contentment the chief end of life. We have proclaimed the message of grace as being the answer to man’s search for happiness. Modern man’s chief aim is to find happiness, but the fact that this desire is universal does not make it right, any more than the universal bias toward sin makes it excusable or right to sin. The aim itself is distorted. To look for happiness is itself essentially selfish and is doomed to failure from the outset. The Gospel is not the universal purveyor of happiness (it would be a justifiable criticism, if it were, to call it the opiate of the people!); it is the one effective answer to this distorted aim in man’s life, for it gives a man a new sense of direction, and enables him to perceive that his chief end, in the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, is “to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” Our forefathers—and they were quite emphatic on the point—made the glory of God the consuming passion of their lives. They had a burning concern for the honor and glory of God’s name. Salvation for them meant that henceforth they should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him, not that they but that he should be satisfied. And, paradoxically, they found in this a happiness such as has all too often eluded our hungry hearts. Happiness is found only when we have ceased to look for it. It is a by-product, something that steals upon us when we are busy with something beyond ourselves. The happiest people are those whose vision has been captured by the realization that there is something higher and nobler than personal happiness in life.

Recovery Of Gospel Emphasis

This, then, must be the first step toward recovery—a new understanding of the purpose of the Gospel, a new realization of the moral imperative it lays upon man to live to the glory of God, as distinct from the psychological considerations that have obscured it. No significant advance in Christian witness can be made until this change is effected, for nothing less will succeed in reaching the root of the problem.

But how is this recovery to take place? Only through a return to true expository preaching. The unfolding of the Scriptures in the fulness of doctrinal content is a task which cries out urgently to be performed in our time and for which there can be no effective substitute. Evangelicals may protest that they have always been doing this, as witness the many Christian conventions and the large audiences they can command. A brief comparison between former times and the present makes it only too clear that the sustained, enriching expository ministry of the older divines has been replaced by the short twenty-minute talk replete with pithy humor, seasoned with anecdote, and “put over” by “personality” men. We have lost sight of the kind of preaching that depends upon nothing save the power of the Word itself and the promised unction of the Spirit. Serious attempt to tap the immense resources available in the Word of God for the building of character has been lacking. But, significantly, where such a full-orbed ministry is maintained, where no concessions are made to the easily tickled palates of modern Christendom, and where expository preaching is taken seriously, the results are always the same—not only does it produce fruit, but quality fruit. It builds Christians of caliber. God is faithful to his own Word.

And what, finally, of the content of such a message? Just this: Paul, writing to the Corinthians of his visit to them, says, “I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.” The Church of our day has yet to see what God can do through the all-embracing proclamation of this grand and glorious message which Paul describes as being both the wisdom and the power of God. Its threefold reference to justification, sanctification, and service, in which it answers the problems of sin, self and Satan, meets the total human situation in a way no other message can.

As to justification, the Cross deals with the very heart of man’s plight in the sight of God. For his problem is never merely his heart hunger and restless dissatisfaction, but his sin and his revolt and rebellion against the holy God of the Scriptures. As to sanctification, it tells us that the faith that justifies also unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection, and slays the old nature, the sinful self, and imparts new life in him. As to service, in which, to use Paul’s words, “we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers,” we have yet to grasp in its fulness the meaning of the statement, “They overcame him (Satan) by the blood of the Lamb.” All this is involved in the preaching of Christ crucified. In the hands of consecrated men the Gospel of Christ is a power mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds of sin and error inside the Church and outside it, and to the upbuilding of lives that can bear the scrutiny of God and man alike, and adorn the doctrine of God their Saviour in all things.

Uncreated Love

Why and how?

What and where?

Who is it

I sense hanging there?

Can He be God,

That wretched figure on the Cross?

Ah! Poor voluntary sufferer,

Is it love

That causes you to suffer so?

And what a love!

Not caritas

Nor ego-centric eros

Nor the other-flowing philos,

(Which at best is love of self reflected in a friend).

But agape divine,

Unmerited, unknown, incomprehensible,

Self-sacrificing love.

The uncreated irreducible

Substantia divine,

That stands at the very center of the Universe;

Wholly other, yet wholly mine!

Then this it is that fills

Men with the trust,

That enables me to surrender

Life and motion every night,

And to sink unafraid

Into the waves of sleep,

That little death, Thanatou hypnos,

Without one guarantee in earth or heaven,

That I shall ever waken,

Ever rise,

Short of the Resurrection of the Dead.

JOHN C. COOPER

James Philip holds the M.A. degree from Aberdeen University and is minister of Gardenstown Parish Church in Banffshire, Scotland. He edits the Prayer Bulletin of the Scottish Evangelistic Council. Student work is his special interest.

The abundance of literature on the subject shows a great interest today in the thought and actions of the “sects.” Before we take a brief look at recent books and articles on this subject it is quite necessary to define the word as we are using it. There is wide difference among writers on the meaning of “sect,” with resulting confusion. This confusion we would avoid, even though we have little hope of convincing everyone of our definition of the word.

“Sect” is often used, by Roman Catholic writers and others, as equivalent to denomination, in distinction from “church.” This is consistent with Roman theory that allows there is but one true church, namely the Roman. Liberal Protestant writers sometimes use the word “sect” in approximately the same sense as the Roman church uses it, though for exactly the opposite reason. Thus, Rome sometimes designates all non-Roman denominations as sects because she believes herself to have the sole right to being called a church; while some liberals apply the word to virtually all Christian denominations because they think that none of them is really more entitled to the term “church” than another.

Evangelicals generally use “sect” when referring to those Christian denominations not regarded as evangelical. They generally believe that there are many denominations which are entitled to the designation “church,” and so freely apply that term to them. Those which do not hold to evangelical principles are not usually called churches at all, but sects or cults.

If it is asked what is essential to being an evangelical church, the answer is usually forthright. Being evangelical is holding to evangelical or fundamental principles, especially the deity of Christ and his atonement.

The most interesting thing presently occurring in the world of churches and sects is the controversy concerning the classification of the Seventh-day Adventists. This group, since it came into being about a century ago, has usually been treated as a sect rather than a church by evangelicals. The Adventists today are contending vigorously that they are truly evangelical. They appear to want to be so regarded. And what is more interesting than this is that many evangelicals are now contending that they ought to be so regarded. But, on the other hand, many believe that the old classification as sect should not be changed. We shall not discuss that matter here, since CHRISTIANITY TODAY proposes soon to present an article by Prof. Harold Lindsell on this whole question. Sufficient to note here, by way of anticipation, that Donald Grey Barnhouse, Walter Martin and others (cf. editorial in Eternity, Sept., 1956, and elsewhere) are calling for a re-evaluation of the SDA’s, while E. B. Jones and others believe that they are as deserving their sectarian classification as ever (Sword of the Lord, Aug. 2, 1957). Just this week the new volume, Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrines, has reached my desk. It begins: “This book came into being to meet a definite need. Interest concerning Seventh-day Adventist belief and work has increased as the movement has grown. But in recent years especially, there seems to be a desire on the part of many non-Adventists for a clearer understanding of our teachings and objectives.” This book is the 720-page Adventist answer to the question whether it ought to be thought of as a sect or a fellow evangelical denomination.

Perhaps the most recent effort to assay all the sects appeared in January. It is the work of the faculty of the Presbyterian Seminary in Louisville, (The Church Faces the Isms, edited by Arnold B. Rhodes). This volume ventures on a somewhat broader field than most works of this variety. Thus it includes chapters on Roman Catholicism, Communism, Dispensationalism, and Fundamentalism, as well as Totalitarianism, Racism, Secularism and other themes.

Walter Martin is probably the most productive evangelical scholar writing in this field. J. K. Van Baalen’s Chaos of Cults continues as the standard evangelical work. Nelson is currently publishing the Why I Am series and we note that Senator Wallace F. Bennett’s Why I Am a Mormon is to appear in April. Leo Rosten has edited A Guide to the Religions of America (1955); this volume includes discussion by representatives of various denominations as well as adherents of the sects; it gives convenient summaries of membership, doctrines, clergy in the appendices, as well as results of a number of interesting public opinion polls. For studies based on firsthand observations and written in a popular nontechnical and nontheological style, Marcus Bach’s several volumes in this area are in a class by themselves. Charles S. Braden, too, occasionally gives studies, such as the one on Father Divine, which were based on observation as well as reading. His They Also Believe and other works are somewhat liberal in their slant but are distinctly significant from the social, theological and historical angle. F. E. Mayer’s The Religious Bodies of America has interesting studies of the sects as well as other religious bodies and is especially strong from the standpoint of theological exposition and evaluation.

Time forbids mention of many works in addition to those above in the general field. Besides the general works many significant special studies are appearing. Among the most important is the account of Jehovah’s Witnesses by the former member, W. J. Schnell (Thirty Years a Watch Tower Slave). In a most interesting fashion he traces his association with this group in Germany and through the United States until his withdrawal. In addition to its value as a personal account, the book reveals uncommon observations about the doctrinal developments and governmental changes in this sect.

The religious periodicals have by no means neglected the sects. One of the most interesting series is found in Interpretation (1956). Professor Bruce Metzger in “Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ” (Theology Today, April, 1953) subjects to thorough refutation the standard passages to which the Witnesses appeal in support of their rejection of the deity of Christ.

Much more could be said about sects. Enough has been mentioned to show that the Church is indeed “facing the isms.” From this “facing” at least two good things may be expected. First, the Church herself may more thoroughly learn the Gospel entrusted to her as she seeks to give these zealots a reason for the hope that is in her. And, second, some of the persons who have been led astray following gospels that are no Gospel may be won back to the bosom of the evangelical Church, the Church of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Christian Freedom

The Christian Concept of Freedom, by Henry Stob, Grand Rapids International, 1957. 52 pp., $1.25.

This is an important book. It is a slender volume, but in it the author discusses an important topic in an excellent way. The author is professor of Ethics and Apologetics at Calvin Seminary. The book contains two lectures, “The Liberty of Man,” and “The Liberty of Conscience.”

The first lecture stresses the Christian concept of freedom as the means by which man may attain his true place in life “under God who made him and above the nature he is called upon to rule” (p. 32). The author states that “the Christian faith is the taproot of our civilization and by that token is the source of what we have come to regard as one of its most hallowed traditions, the tradition of freedom” (p. 15). Against this definition of freedom, Dr. Stob ably examines the failings of Greek humanism, mediaeval and renaissance philosophy, and Marxist materialism.

The secret of true freedom, says Dr. Stob, is an enigma to the secular mind. But the man of faith knows that freedom begins only when men bow in reverent obedience before God. Christians “bow at this one point and therefore are free at every other … free of nature and on an equality with men.” Dr. Stob continues, “That is why we are deaf to communism; we have no ear for economic determinism. That is why we resist to the death all tyranny; having given our allegiance to the King of Kings we count no man our master—neither the man on horseback, nor the … man in the mitred cap. We stand in awe neither of the man in the Cadillac nor of the man in overalls. We are not intimidated by academic nonsense, and we do not bow before the sacred cow of science. We are free men” (pp. 32–33).

While the first lecture deals with political and social freedom, the second is concerned with problems of the Christian conscience. “Conscience is nothing if not that through which man becomes aware of obligation,” writes Dr. Stob, but conscience does not tell us “what the nature of the Good is to which it is bound.” The Christian believes that a person cannot “in any uncritical sense let conscience be his guide.… It is the Word of God, specifically the Bible, which is the ultimate guide” (pp. 41–45, passim). The Bible commands us to love, “to leave no area of our life unsurrendered to our Lord, no duty to our fellows unfulfilled” (p. 47).

The Christian Concept of Freedom deserves widespread reading. Dr. Stob brings to the discussion of his timely topic both scholarly insight and historical understanding. The language is clear. Best of all, the discussion is drawn from and based on the Scriptures.

DICK L. VAN HALSEMA

Postwar British Theology

The Box and the Puppets, by Nathaniel Micklem, Geoffrey Bles, London, 1957. 13s/6d.

The reminiscences of the former principal of Mansfield College, Oxford, are full of interest for their self-disclosure of one who made a significant contribution to British theology. Of even greater interest is the light they throw on the religious life of English Nonconformity during the present century and on personalities past and present who helped to mould theological opinion.

Educated at Rugby and New College, Oxford, and subsequently at Mansfield College in the days of A. M. Fairbairn, W. B. Selbie, James Moffatt and J. Vernon Bartlet, Micklem became a “Nonconformist because of principle and not because of the seductive claims of contemporary Dissent.” His early years were academic rather than pastoral and in 1927 he was appointed to the New Testament Chair in Queens Theological College, Kingston, Ontario.

On returning to England four years later Micklem was shocked by the extent to which liberal theology had developed in his denomination. The Blackheath group led by Frank Lenwood (author of Jesus—Lord or Leader) had produced a statement of faith which they proposed to substitute for the old beliefs, and Micklem incurred the odium of being regarded as a reactionary by a considerable body of opinion in the Congregational church. “If the Congregational churches suffered more than most from the rationalism and anti-supernaturalism of the day, they were not alone.” While regarded as conservative by many, Micklem found himself defending Eric Roberts, a Baptist minister who in the early thirties was removed from his charge by the Baptist Union of Scotland for views hardly distinguishable from Unitarian. He considered the theology of liberalism of that time was inadequate to its faith.

It is significant that following the uncertainty of the early thirties a remarkable change took place, especially from 1937 onward, from which time candidates “seemed to have in the main a far clearer understanding and a far deeper experience of evangelical religion than their predecessors. I believe that my impression would be confirmed by other college principals in office then. I cannot account for this except as an unpredictable blowing of the Spirit.” In a slightly different context, the author later remarked, “The hope of the Free Churches lies under God in the men who since 1939 (roughly) have been entering the ministry.” And again, “Not all the changes have been wholly good; a reaction to ‘Fundamentalism’ in some quarters and in others a virtual repudiation of the Age of Reason are disquieting: but that there has been something like a new consciousness of the Gospel and a deepening grasp upon its implications in many places is not to be doubted.”

In short, Micklem largely typifies postwar British theology, disillusioned by the liberalism which sapped its vitality in the generation just past, and yet not sure of the ground to which it is inclined to return. It is altogether a refreshing autobiography with much to encourage thankfulness—and some things to regret.

S. W. MURRAY

Freedom And Christianity

God, Gold, and Government by Howard E. Kershner, Prentice-Hall, 1957. 146 pp. $2.95.

This book is an expansion of lectures the author gave at Fuller Theological Seminary in 1955 as part of the American Heritage Series. The subject matter is of paramount importance: the relationships between Christianity, on the one hand, and government and economic life on the other. Dr. Kershner, who is also the editor of Christian Economics and the president of the Christian Freedom Foundation, writes with great passion and evident sincerity, and has done a most commendable job in presenting his subject in a convincing and interesting manner. His book is full of good illustrations and excellent quotations.

Dr. Kershner is at his best in driving home the absolute necessity of having a truly honest and trusted monetary system. For Dr. Kershner, this is the gold standard. He lays a heavy charge on all governments and public servants who connive to steal a people’s substance and rob them of their confidence by “legal theft” and “legislative dishonesty.” The consequences of such monetary immorality he spells out most clearly, and his conclusion is hardly escapable, that we must restore the soundness of our dollar or face imminent danger of economic disaster.

His chapter on the virtues of the profit motive is fine. It will unfortunately mean more to a communist reader than to most of us. We take the profit motive for granted, perhaps to our peril. The communist cannot take it for granted, and he knows from sad experience how right Dr. Kershner is about it.

In some places Dr. Kershner has not written fully enough and is liable to considerable misinterpretation. For example, serious students of socialism and communism will probably feel that Dr. Kershner’s words about slum clearance do not by any means indicate an appreciation of what socialists and communists propose to do with the problem. And one might wish that Dr. Kershner had written more on the relationship of big corporations to Christianity.

It may not have been intentional on his part, and may in fact be quite contrary to what he really believes, but Dr. Kershner leaves the impression that, in his opinion, freedom, political and economic, came first, and afterward Christianity. If this is Dr. Kershner’s opinion, he is wrong. Difficult as it has been, Christianity has previously survived and grown without freedom, and can again, if need be. There can be Christianity without freedom. It was born among slaves and first appeared among the remote villages of a captive nation. But where have representative government, freedom and free-enterprise survived without Christianity?

For millions of people today, as well as in the past, there is not the conflict between obedience to God and obedience to the state which Dr. Kershner labors so heavily. And what of those for whom the voice of the state is, and always has been, the “voice of God?” And what of St. Paul’s injunction to Christians to “be subject to the higher powers?” “The powers that be are ordained of God,” says he. Dr. Kershner needs to outline much more clearly just what the relations between a Christian and his government should be, and what the relations between a Christian and his God should be also.

There is in vogue today a most amazing patronizing attitude toward Christianity, especially by the noncommunist West. It ought to be rejected, and such patronizing should be stopped. Christ does not need our patronage. Before us all he stands as the Judge. We may take comfort in the fact that our enemies are definitely anti-Christian, but we should err greatly if we allowed such comfort to becloud the fact that some of our own thinking and conduct may be anti-Christian also. For we are assured in Scripture, “There is no respect of persons with him.”

DAVID W. BAKER

Reference Work

The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, edited by F. L. Cross, Oxford, 1957. 1,492 pp., $17.50

A new and comprehensive reference work, conceived and produced in accordance with the standards of the Oxford University Press, cannot be regarded as other than an event of major importance.

All who confess to an interest in the historical affairs and personalities of the Christian church will welcome the achievement of this Dictionary and will acknowledge their indebtedness to Professor Cross as the editorial designer and fashioner of so great a project. Regarding the scope of the volume, the editor offers the following remarks:

“If in the present work fuller attention has been paid to Western Christendom than to later Eastern Orthodoxy, to Christianity in Britain than to that of the Continent, to the events of the nineteenth century than to those of the tenth, this disproportion is only relative. In any case it may be presumed that the reader will welcome fuller information on matters at closer range.

“If on the other hand, to some readers outside Europe it seems that insufficient attention has been given to the non-European lands where Christianity is now firmly planted, it must be recalled that the church’s connection with Mediterranean and European countries is of far longer standing, and this fact is necessarily reflected in the subject-matter of a work in which the treatment is historical.”

The range of this work is extensive, the entries are concise and informative, and have been followed by bibliographies which, though not intended to be exhaustive, in some cases might with advantage have been more up to date. If there is a bias, it is certainly on the Roman Catholic rather than the Protestant side; and where scriptural questions are involved, it is on the critical rather than the conservative side. Inaccuracies may be detected here and there—for instance, the Church Association is spoken of as though still in existence as a separate entity, whereas in 1950 it was amalgamated with the National Church League (not mentioned) to form the Church Society (not mentioned.

But the value of this new Dictionary is beyond question. It will be consulted with pleasure and profit for years to come.

PHILIP EDGCUMBE HUGHES

Reality Of Hell

The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment by Harry Buis, Presbyterian and Reformed, Philadelphia, 1957. $2.75.

Here is a scholarly yet practical discussion of interest to any Christian who desires to mediate God’s Word to modern man. The subject of sin, punishment and hell vs. obedience, redemption and heaven is the theme of Divine revelation. First we have the choice, then the responsibility to proclaim the alternatives facing the human soul.

This subject is too lightly skipped over in most of our preaching and teaching today. And yet, in the words of Richard Baxter, “If the wrath of God be so light, why did the Son of God himself make so great a matter of it?”

This author has done a masterful piece of research and has assembled chronologically the best thought on this subject from the Old Testament, the inter-testamental period, New Testament, pre-Reformation, the Reformation and on up to date. He includes the present-day conservative position, and discussions on infant salvation and damnation, on the heathen who have not heard the Gospel, and on the denials by the cults. He discusses Annihilationism, Universalism and the historic Christian doctrine held by our denominations.

There is abundant quotation material here for preaching, and some good theological word-study and exegesis. Here are some quotations. Augustine confessed, “Thy right hand was continually ready to pluck me out of the mire, and to wash me thoroughly, and I knew it not; nor did anything call me back from a yet deeper gulf of carnal pleasures, but the fear of death and of thy judgment to come; which, amid all my changes, never departed my breast.”

“Is not God then also merciful?” asks the Heidelberg Catechism; and it answers, “God is indeed merciful, but also just, therefore his justice requires that sin committed against the most high majesty of God be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting punishment of body and soul.”

He who knows and trusts his Bible understands that Jesus the lover of our souls is the person responsible for this doctrine. “He is the being with whom all opponents of this theological tenet are in conflict. Neither the Christian church, nor the Christian ministry are the authors of it,” says the author.

Bishop John Ryle of Liverpool said, “Let others hold their peace about hell if they will—I dare not do so. I see it plainly in Scripture, and I must speak of it. I fear that thousands are on that broad road that leads to it, and I would fain arouse them to a sense of the peril before them.”

Present-day conservative theology holds that “Hell is a reality, but the concepts such as fire must be taken symbolically, as symbols of a very real and very serious spiritual fact. The liberal fails to understand our position when he thinks we take these symbols literally. On the other hand, the ultra-conservative literalist must be made to understand that we have in no way abandoned the belief in eternal punishment when we advocate such a symbolical interpretation.”

ROBERT W. YOUNG

Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

What thrills us is that this first word of prayer that Jesus offered was not for himself. He did not ask for his own deliverance. He did not pray in that black hour for his loved ones, nor for his friends. He prayed for his enemies. He prayed for the soldiers and for the far more cruel churchmen who, having nailed him to the cross, were even then howling about him. It was around the bloody shoulders of these murderers that he flung the folds of this prayer.

As a man, he retains nothing but forgiveness and love. His whole life was an expression of love, and his death set the seal. This word points to his atoning and interceding love. Observe he does not pray for any forgiveness for himself. A fact impossible to account for, save on the ground that he was the Holy One of God.

That is humanity at its greatest. Men have their conceptions of human nature, and of what things make for greatness therein. These conceptions are very many and very varied. I submit that humanity has never been seen greater than in the Man Jesus, when he said, “Father, forgive them.” In the soul of Jesus there was no resentment, no anger, no lurking desire for punishment upon the men who were maltreating him.

As in numerous other instances, each of the Gospels gives only a few details from the story of the crucifixion and of Jesus’ suffering on the cross. Thus no Gospel gives all the words spoken by him on the cross and we have to take the accounts of all the four Gospels together in order to get a sufficiently full picture. Luke was the only one to record the prayer of the Crucified One for his enemies. It is in perfect agreement with Luke’s predilection throughout his Gospel to let the light fall as brightly as possible on Jesus’ illimitable love for sinners and the forgiveness of God, that he particularly recorded these words. And how this prayer of the Crucified Redeemer reveals not merely his wonderful self-forgetfulness, but also his magnanimity and his earnest longing that his persecutors should be given another chance to repent before the otherwise inevitable judgment is executed on their sins! Even as the gardener prayed to the owner of the vineyard to give the fig-tree a last chance, so Jesus in this prayer besought a last chance for the guilty people.

Father, Forgive Them

This simple prayer is astounding; all interpretation will leave much yet to add. The climax of suffering is now being reached, but the heart of Jesus is not submerged in this rising tide—he thinks of his enemies and of all those who have brought this flood of suffering upon him. One should dwell here on the whole Passion history and that it meant agony for Jesus. He might have prayed for justice and just retribution; but his love rises above his suffering, he prays for pardon for his enemies. Such love exceeds comprehension, yet reveals the source whence our redemption and pardon flow. “Father,” Jesus addressed God, speaking even now as the Son, as accepting filially all that his Father is letting come upon him. His Father is with him and hears his Son say “Father,” and what this Son now utters will meet full response in the Father’s heart, for he so loved the world that he sent his own Son to die for the world, and this dying is now at hand.

R. C. H. LENSKI

We cannot doubt, that at this time, when he was about to lay down his life for mankind, and when the act of crucifixion had taken place, and he was elevated on the cross, that the whole world of mankind filled his spiritual vision. The whole race were his crucifiers. The Roman soldiers were those who executed the deed. But all mankind were represented in that act, and shared by their own personal rebellion against God and his holy child Jesus, in the dreadful deed.

JOHN J. OWEN

We are shown here the efficacy of prayer. This Cross-intercession of Christ for his enemies met with a marked and definite answer. The answer is seen in the conversion of the three thousand souls on the Day of Pentecost. I base this conclusion on Acts 3:17 where the apostle Peter says, “And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers.” It is to be noted that Peter uses the word “ignorance” which corresponds with our Lord’s “they know not what they do.” Here then is the divine explanation of the three thousand converted under a single sermon. It was not Peter’s eloquence which was the cause but the Saviour’s prayer.

ARTHUR W. PINK

Sin Of Ignorance

The persons for whom this prayer is offered cannot be the Roman soldiers, who are blindly executing the orders which they have received; it is certainly the Jews, who, by rejecting and slaying their Messiah, are smiting themselves with a mortal blow (John 2:19). It is therefore literally true, that in acting thus they know not what they do. The prayer of Jesus was granted in the forty years’ respite during which they were permitted, before perishing, to hear the apostolic preaching. The wrath of God might have been discharged upon them at the very moment.

F. GODET

It was argued by an acute Jew, that if Christ was truly Son of God his prayer would have been heard, and the Jews would not have been, as Christians admit they have been, punished for their sin. But this, like every other prayer, is offered on condition that its answer and fulfillment be in accordance with the divine order. It presents the sinner to God the Father as within the reach of pardon in view of Christ’s great sacrifice; it proffers that sacrifice in his death, and asks that pardon may be granted, in the resulting conditions of pardon. In order to that pardon, the sacrifice, the intercession, the Spirit of grace, and the sinner’s repentance and accepting faith, must all concur.

D. D. WHEDON

Under the Levitical economy God required that atonement should be made for sins of ignorance (Lev. 5:15, 16; Num. 15:22–25). Sin is always sin in the sight of God whether we are conscious of it or not. Sins of ignorance need atonement just as truly as do conscious sins. God is holy, and he will not lower his standard of righteousness to the level of our ignorance. As a matter of fact ignorance is more culpable now than it was in the days of Moses. We have no excuse for our ignorance. God had clearly and fully revealed his will. The Bible is in our hands, and we cannot plead ignorance of its contents except to condemn our laziness. God has spoken, and by his Word we shall be judged. And yet the fact remains that we are ignorant of many things, and the fault and blame are ours. And this does not minimize the enormity of our guilt.

ARTHUR W. PINK