NEWS

Christianity in the World Today

Two young women learned that the “best” literature in the nation’s capital is readily available to them, even though they are ministers’ daughters.

On a special research project for CHRISTIANITY TODAY, they found easy access to the magazine stocks of three newsstands in downtown Washington. One of the girls is the daughter of a Dutch Reformed minister, the other the daughter of a Presbyterian clergyman.

Within three blocks of the White House, they were able to buy:

—The May issue of Hush-Hush, which features “the inside story of the nude model who pinch-hit for Princess Meg.”

—The April issue of Ace, which includes the story of “a voluptuous wench.”

—The spring edition of Sunbathing Review, with more than 85 pictures of nude women and children. One series of photographs portrays the activities of two teen-aged girls in a California nudist camp.

—The March edition of Night and Day, carrying several advertisements that offer by return mail pictures of women posed to order.

—Three undated publications, all of which have pictorial sequences of nude women. In one publication, the sequence is in full color and runs next to a fictional description of brothels in Algiers. Another depicts an “actress model” in her bath and performing “the neatest trick of all … (bra-ing that 38-caliber bosom).”

The magazines were purchased two days after “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands” (CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Vol. II, No. 10, Feb. 17, 1958) was incorporated into the Congressional Record (Vol. 104, No. 125, Feb. 19, 1958) by Democratic Representative John Dowdy of Texas.

The first newsstand, just around the corner from New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, was crowded with men. One of the inquiring young women pointed to a group of magazines and inquired of a clerk, “Are these the best sellers?”

“They’re the best read,” the clerk replied.

The question was repeated. This time the clerk answered:

“Let’s just say they’re the best.”

At a second stand, this one across the street from the Treasury Building, magazines were stacked on boxes on the sidewalk. Only at one of the three stands did a clerk show any misgivings about selling indiscriminately to a nattily-dressed young woman. The elderly man behind the counter “didn’t know whether she would want to buy that type of magazine.” He sold it anyway.

A CHRISTIANITY TODAY reporter also discovered that indiscrimination extended to Sunday sales policies among literature sellers of the Washington area. The last Sunday in February he found available in a drugstore within sight of the White House such pocket novels as Peyton Place, Deer Park and Erskine Caldwell’s Place Called Estherville.

The first Sunday in March, he visited a newsstand along a main thoroughfare in suburban Arlington, Virginia. The proprietor was counting change when the visitor picked up a copy of Sir Knight (Vol. I, No. 1, undated) and asked, “Is this a good one?”

“Uh-huh,” answered the proprietor.

“Is it the best one?”

“It’s as good as they come.”

Here are introductory “greetings” from Sir Knight:

“Here, in his first appearance, is the Collector’s Edition of Sir Knight, a brand-new, adult man’s magagazine [sic] dedicated solely to fostering the proposition that every male with corpuscles pink and surging in his veins has the right to pursue all the happiness he can grasp for himself in this time of external tensions and uncertainty.

“The single constant in the constantly changing world of today, is the enchanting biological relationship that has existed between men and women since long before the dawn of known history.” Sir Knight embarked on its maiden voyage containing such themes as “Outhouse Art,” “Four-bill Date,” “First Night” and “Hollywood Heat.”

Lack of discrimination is even more evident among pornography peddlers of the mail-order variety. Mailing of obscene matter to teen-agers is currently of chief concern to post office inspectors. Here is an excerpt from an advertisement (found in the possession of a minor) for slides and movies of nudes: “The censors say we have blown the lid off and may have stepped out of bounds. Because of this situation, it may become necessary to destroy our negatives. We, therefore, urge you to order immediately.…

“Because of the torrid quality of this merchandise, it may become necessary at no extra cost to you to ship your order by means other than the United States Post Office.… After you have placed your order, please destroy this letter.”

The following is taken from another advertisement that gives the appearance of being a hand-written note signed by a model:

“I know exactly what you want (all of you men are alike), and I’m one of the few gals you’ll find who enjoys pleasing you all the way.”

Legal Counteraction

Legislation to crack down on the spread of lewd reading material is under consideration both in the Senate and in the House. Hearings on one such bill were scheduled for this month.

A spokesman for the Churchmen’s Commission for Decent Publications reported a wave of indignation among ministers over the recent lack of restraint in publishing. He said that in two weeks following the date of publication of “Sex and Smut on the Newsstands” the commission received more than 200 inquiries, many from clergymen who stated a desire to take action through local ministerial groups.

A Roman Catholic priest has suggested that Communists are behind the rash of indecent publications and objectionable comics. The Rev. Joseph P. Lamanna of Delhi, New York, said the association has been brought to light in the testimony of former Communists before closed Congressional hearings.

Editorial Apology

The publisher of a Vermont newspaper apologized for having run an advertisement for the film “Peyton Place” in a Sunday edition.

William Loeb added in a signed front-page editorial:

“One of the terrible things in these days is the filth that passes for literature. For weeks Peyton Place stood at the head of the best seller list of the United States. Such writings have always existed but generally they were confined to scribblings on bathroom walls.”

Publisher Loeb, a Protestant, said the money charged for the ad would be donated to the diocesan office of the Legion of Decency, which makes moral evaluations of current films for the guidance of Roman Catholics.

Catholics In The News

The beginning of March found Catholic leaders in headlines throughout the world in a variety of developments:

FLORENCE, Italy—Bishop Pietro Fiordelli was convicted of defaming a couple married civilly. The husband in the case is an ex-communist who renounced Roman Catholicism and now professes to be an atheist.

VATICAN CITY—Pope Pius XII named Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago, to the newly-created office of Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, then suspended the nineteenth anniversary celebration of his own coronation as head of the Roman Catholic Church. The Pope, who was 82 March 2, was reported grief-stricken over Bishop Fiordelli’s conviction.

VATICAN CITY—Vatican Radio reported that the Holy See has officially recognized the new United Arab Republic.

HAVANA, Cuba—Roman Catholic leaders appealed for President Fulgencio Batista to form a national union government to include some of his opponents. Batista rejected the appeal and sources close to him were reported to have accused the church officials of “direct, glaring intervention in Cuban political affairs.”

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina—President-elect Arturo Frondizi paid a courtesy call on Coadjutor Archbishop Fermin Lafitte, encouraging Catholic hopes for fair treatment from the 49-year-old lawyer swept into office with votes from communists and Peronists.

NEW YORK—Fordham University, a Roman Catholic institution, acquired a two-block plot of land from the city at marked-down prices. Court appeals claiming the transaction illegal still are pending.

Salesman Of A Sort

Evangelist Billy Graham received the “Salesman of the Year” award from the Sales Executive Club of New York. The citation honored him for “selling religion to millions of people throughout the world.”

Graham is scheduled to deliver an address at the National Association of Evangelicals convention in Chicago April 14–18. His eight-week San Francisco crusade opens April 27.

The evangelist said total decisions in Latin American rallies numbered 20,700.

More Rsv Rights

Starting in 1962, at least four publishing firms besides Thomas Nelson and Sons of New York will be authorized to print the Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

The National Council of Churches’ Division of Christian Education, owner of the RSV copyright, announced the names of the new publishers at its annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

Thomas Nelson and Sons have exclusive RSV publishing rights until 1962. At that time the rights will also be distributed to William Collins and Sons of New York, A. J. Holman Company of Philadelphia, Oxford University Press of New York, and World Publishing Company of Cleveland. A contract is being negotiated with a fifth publisher, Harper and Brothers of New York.

It was reported that nearly 6,000,000 copies of the RSV Bible have been sold since 1952, plus an additional 3,500,000 copies of the RSV New Testament.

Hour Of Sharing

Overseas relief agencies are making a special appeal for funds to help the needy.

Last week Protestants observed “One Great Hour of Sharing,” with offerings in many churches going toward relief work.

More than 100,000,000 needy persons abroad received help during 1957 from religious relief agencies. Food, clothing, medicine and tools were sent to ease suffering.

A “United Jewish Appeal Rescue Fund” also is conducting a relief campaign.

People: Words And Events

Deaths: Methodist Bishop Frederick Deland Leete, 91, in St. Petersburg, Florida; Dr. H. Crawford Walters, 69-year-old former president of the Methodist Conference of Great Britain, in Eastbourne, Sussex.

Appointments: The Rev. Alex E. Dandar, as field director of the Religion and Labor Foundation; Dr. Walter W. Leibrecht as director of the Evanston Institute for Ecumenical Studies; the Rev. Arnold A. Dallimore as editor of the Canadian Fellowship Baptist.

Publication: The first complete and unabridged edition of The Works of John Wesley to be released in nearly 100 years, by the Zondervan Publishing House, starting in May.

Resignation: After 20 years as pastor of the First Covenant Church of Minneapolis, Dr. Paul S. Rees, to return to evangelistic work.

Results: Of a 10-day Methodist evangelistic crusade in Cuba, 2,357 persons enrolled in training classes for church membership.

Fire: At Montreat College, Presbyterian school for girls in North Carolina, caused $250,000 damage, no injuries. Merchants and townspeople freely replenished girls’ personal effects.

Matriculation: At Georgetown University, the Rev. Paul Adenauer, son of West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer. Adenauer, 35, is a Roman Catholic priest studying American small business.

Service: Commemorating 200th anniversary of the death of Jonathan Edwards, held at First Church of Christ in Northampton, Massachusetts, March 9. Edwards served as pastor of the historic Congregational church for 23 years.

Trend To The Modern

Church buildings of contemporary design have won all except one of fourteen awards bestowed by the Church Architectural Guild of America.

This year’s winners in the annual competition sponsored by the guild were announced at the National Conference on Church Architecture held last month in Detroit. The conference, also annual, is co-sponsored by the guild and the National Council of Churches’ Department of Church Building.

The delegates to the conference heard a warning from Dr. George M. Gibson of McCormick Theological Seminary, who said that a church building “may be well planned as a work of geometry and well built as a fabric, yet through ill-considered furnishings, symbolism and decoration may falsify the message of the church.”

Many of the new churches built during the last 30 years are “virtually denying in their architecture what they are saying in their doctrine,” Gibson said.

Meanwhile, Architectural Forum magazine predicted that church construction will soar for the next ten years. The magazine predicted that United States churchgoers will spend $920,000,000 in 1958 on new religious edifices, a gain of 6 per cent over last year’s record.

Ncc Commitments

Dr. Edwin T. Dahlberg, president of the National Council of Churches, called for stepped-up non-military aid to help disperse the misery which “hangs like a fog” over Africa and Asia.

The Religious News Service reported that Dahlberg spoke on behalf of the Council in calling upon major political parties to “rise above party alignments and provide for the basic needs of our own people and the world’s people” through mutual aid programs.

Dahlberg made his remarks to a Conference on the Foreign Aspects of U. S. National Security, sponsored by the International Advisory Board in Washington.

In New York, a resolution supporting non-military mutual aid programs and reciprocal foreign trade agreements was passed unanimously by the NCC’s 250-member policy-making General Board.

Action For Peace

The presidents of the American and Southern Baptist conventions say they will propose the establishment of committees to further the cause of world peace.

Democratic Representative Brooks Hays of Arkansas plans to introduce the idea for a peace committee when the Southern Baptist Convention meets in Houston, Texas, May 20–23. Dr. Clarence W. Cranford is to draft a similar proposal to submit to the American Baptist convention at Cincinnati, June 12–17.

The function of the committees would be to set up a world-wide prayer chain and a suggestion program. Missionaries would help implement the program to pray for peace while soliciting suggestions from various peoples as to how peace can be achieved.

Representative Hays and Dr. Cranford also have announced plans to visit Moscow Baptists next month if they can obtain Soviet approval. Hays said he did not hope to preach in the First Baptist Church of Moscow, but added, “I’ll testify if they want me to.”

THE E-BOMB

Pundits, statesmen and educators have commandeered the little moons as space platforms to lecture us about the scientific revolution. Survival now demands mind-power more than manpower. Only through education, say the educators, can we keep up with the Jonesevitches.

Publicity-minded pedagogues call it the E-bomb. It surely has a critical mass in our metropolitan schools. Is it clear how it helps to have the thing go off? Are the radioactive kids jiving in the new gym part of the fallout? The gang warlord who made his switchblade in the school shop is not well-educated, but would the E-bomb still be a dud if he learned to make a missile?

Even the “vision of greatness” as a neutral educational morality is not promising if the gang known as “The Egyptian Kings” happens to be most attracted to the greatness of Nero, Napoleon, or Nietzsche.

It is no solution, however, for evangelicals to throw rocks through the window walls of progressive education. Our stained glass windows are also vulnerable, especially those of abandoned churches in gangland. Courageous school teachers face young mobsters deserted by the churches in this flight to the suburbs.

A major breakthrough in Christian education is overdue: from the hour-a-week Sunday School (where no saint is more secure than Miss Fixture, whose practiced ineptitude has alienated generations of teen-agers) to a program of Christian nurture joining home and church in a curriculum to remove biblical illiteracy and train servants of Christ.

The Gospel once illumined all higher education in America. Another revival is needed—of Christian colleges, primary and secondary schools. The positive accomplishment of Christ-centered education can show the sweep and relevance of God’s Word. We have a margin of luxury our fathers never knew. Do we have their vision? Even an atomic age cannot match the dynamis of Pentecost!

WORLD GOVERNMENT

Commander Lippincott’s article on “World Government and Christianity” (Feb. 3 issue) should be read by all supporters of the U.N.; then they should read Paul Blanshard’s “Protestant Freedom” in the Christian Herald. Then they might attempt to swallow the Bahai idea of world federalism. Then read the history of the tower of Babel. Then study the history of governments in relation to the Chief Corner Stone which builders did and still reject.…

Monmouth, Ill.

Not only do I think Mr. Lippincott has an improper evaluation of our present United Nations, but his feeling that our lack of majority in the world as Christians means we are not to trust anyone else is also unChristian.… He states that the 800,000,000 Communists (the amount of real Communists I doubt) are all militant atheists. Did he read your article of a copy or two ago concerning the church in Russia? Secondly concerning the 700,000,000 Moslems that they are all anti-Christian. Mr. Lippincott cannot find facts to substantiate his statements. Emanuel Evangelical

United Brethren Church

Huntingburg, Indiana

Does that man know anything about Bible prophecy? It does not look like it.

Berkeley, Calif.

You and the author are to be commended for bringing to your readers some pertinent (but less favorable) aspects, of what, has in the eyes of many, become something of a “sacred cow.”

Lakehurst, N. J.

In the midst of the continuing hue and cry about World Government, Mr. Lippincott’s article seems like a good dose of calming and thought-producing medicine.

There is still another area in which we also need some such kind of medicine! And that is the issue of Church-State relations!…

My reason for raising this question is this: unless the apathetic attitude of the voting public is aroused, we are going to awaken quite soon, to the fact that the “wall of separation” has been quietly removed … not tom down … not demolished … but just quietly picked up and set aside, much in the same manner as some of our other solid American distinctions have been museumed!

The Methodist Church

Chicora, Pa.

UNCERTAIN TRUMPETERS

In recent years I have been considerably disturbed by the uncertainty displayed by some young men and women seeking to be taken under care of Presbytery in view of full-time Christian service, all fine young folks having high ideals and purpose. It would be unreasonable and unfair to expect these candidates to know the answer to some of the perplexing questions voiced by theologians, yet it would seem that there are certain truths, revealed in the Scriptures, upon which there should be no doubts. I refer to the Person of Christ, his sinless life, atoning death, bodily resurrection, ascension, and coming again to reign. Should our Presbyteries ordain any such young people before they have planted the feet of their faith on solid ground? Should we send forth trumpeters whose trumpets have an uncertain sound?

Madison, Wis.

UN AND CHRISTIANITY

If UN gets the power, for which it is striving, and which Christian leadership in our country seems determined to give it, Christianity, much less Protestant Christianity, won’t have a chance, not even a hope.…

Christian Freedom Foundation President

New York City

ICCC MISSIONS

In reference to … “The Drive for IMCWCC Merger” (Sept. 30 issue) I want to convey to you … that in addition to the organizations of mission agencies which you list … there is in existence, The Associated Missions of the ICCC, otherwise alphabetically known as TAM.… The approximate number of missionaries involved … is one thousand and the finances passing through these mission agencies will approximate not less than one million five hundred thousand dollars.…

The Associated Missions has and will continue to take a clear-cut stand with reference to these issues which involve separation from apostasy and refusal to co-operate with the false teaching of modern religious liberalism as represented by both the World Council and IMC.

Associated Missions of ICCC

Cleveland, Ohio

RECESSION POSSIBILITIES

Ministers should be reminded of the tremendous opportunities that a “recession” and “layoffs” afford. It is true that “materially” it is not good, but we dare not overlook … other aspects.

Christian men … affected by layoffs need guidance.… They need to be guided to profitable use of the time that they find on their hands. The reading of the Bible and good books should be encouraged, along with prayer. Also now is the opportunity for the church to utilize this time needed for calling!… It is also a time of “change” when [people] may be more “fluid” and pliable—more receptive to the Gospel or an invitation to hear it.…

Wellington, Ohio

HILLBILLIES AND POETS

Concerning the “Gospel on the Radio.” Sometimes it appears as if the gospel is only for hillbillies and the like.… The hillbillies need saving, but so do Doctors, Lawyers, Professors, Senators, Actors, Authors, Philosophers and Poets.

Alexandria, Va.

GOOD HOPE

CHRISTIANITY TODAY … is one of the most hopeful indications of evangelical life in American Christianity.

Gordon Divinity School

Beverly Farms, Mass.

The fact that extreme Fundamentalists scourge you as being a liar, and extreme Neo’s and Liberals likewise condemn you should be a source of inspiration to you, in that this must be the result of the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Maywood, Ill.

Why not endeavor to be neither ‘Fundamental or Modernistic’ but Christian?… I thank God for Fosdick (Social Reformer) and Graham (Evangelist) both God’s men of our day.

Methodist Church

Grant Park, Ill.

I regard it as a MUST for every minister and Bible student who is willing to remain open and receptive to all the light and strength that better means and methods of Bible study can bring.

Dallas, Texas

First Epistle To The Corinthians

Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians has throughout the centuries been prized by the Church as one of the most important component parts of the New Testament revelation. There are no solid grounds for doubting that Paul was the author of this document. Indeed, with regard to its authenticity Robertson and Plummer assert that “both the external and the internal evidence for the Pauline authorship are so strong that those who attempt to show that the Apostle was not the writer succeed chiefly in proving their own incompetence as critics.” The letter was written from Ephesus probably in the year 57 A.D.

On two occasions prior to its composition Paul had visited the city of Corinth, in the course, namely, of his second and third missionary journeys; and so he was familiar with the place and its inhabitants. Corinth was not only the metropolis of the Roman province of Achaia but also a great commercial centre on which traders converged from all directions. It was notorious, too, even in the Roman empire, as a centre of extreme profligacy and licentiousness. Beyond doubt Paul regarded it as a key point in the missionary expansion of the early Church, and certainly it was a city which presented a tremendous challenge to the Gospel: if the message of the Cross had power to reach and transform the lives of men and women living in the Corinthian cesspool, then it was powerful indeed! And this is precisely what happened. The Apostle had come to them “in weakness and in fear and in much trembling,” determined, however, not to know anything among them “save Jesus Christ, and him crucified,” and therefore to shun the arts of oratory and the persuasions of philosophy (both so attractive to the Greek mentality), in order that their faith should stand, “not in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (2:1–5). As the result of his preaching, which was “in demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (2:4), souls had been saved and the Christian church established in Corinth, as a light in a dark place. It was, moreover, a church enriched in everything in Christ, “in all utterance and all knowledge” (1:5, 7).

Rebuke Of Errors

But it was not long before serious errors both of doctrine and practice, which threatened the well-being and even the survival of the church, arose within the ranks of the believers; and it is to the correction of these errors that I Corinthians is mainly devoted. In the first place, deplorable divisions had split the church into hostile factions. Some claimed to be followers of Paul, others of Apollos, others of Peter and others of Christ—these last evidently pretending to some special and exclusive connection with Christ which reflected adversely on the spiritual genuineness of all the rest. Such schisms were an outward negation of the fundamental oneness of all believers in Christ (cf. Gal. 3:28). One can almost detect the note of horror as Paul demands: “Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized into the name of Paul?” (1:12f.). It was Christ he had preached in Corinth, not himself (2:2). He and Apollos and Peter were among the foolish, weak, base and despised things, yes, and the nonenities, whom God had chosen for the work of the Gospel. It is Christ Jesus, and no one else, who is everything to the believer—wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption (1:26–30). The conclusion, therefore, is obvious: that all glorying should be in the Lord alone (1:29, 31; cf. Jer. 9:23f.). Paul and Apollos were not overlords, but only ministers (that is, servants) through whom the Corinthians had come to faith in Christ (3:5; 4:1ff.) They had planted and watered the good seed; but it was God who had given the harvest: “So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase” (3:6, 7). By giving credence to the wisdom of this world and glorying in men, the Corinthians had been deceiving themselves and dishonouring God (3:18ff.).

To be looked on as a denominational leader was abhorrent to Paul. After all, what sort of men had the world seen the apostles to be?—men “doomed to death,” fools for Christ’s sake, weak, despised, hungry, thirsty, naked, buffeted, homeless, toiling, reviled, defamed, “made as the filth of the world and the offscouring of all things” (4:10–13). Paul desired as his followers only those who were willing to imitate him in this Christ-like humility of daily self-abnegation and cross-bearing and devotion to Christ (4:14–16; 11:1). Far from showing humility, however, the Corinthians had been puffed up in the vaunting pride of their factions (4:6) and, at least some of them, in contempt of Paul, their absent Apostle (4:18). In fact, the leaven of the old life was still active in them, puffing them up to such an extent that they had even condoned a case of incest in their midst and had failed to put the offender away from themselves (5:1–5, 9–13). It is well known that even a little leaven permeates and acts upon the whole lump. As partakers, therefore, of Christ, their Passover Lamb who had been sacrificed for them, they must ensure that the old leaven is purged out (5:6–8; an allusion to the ceremonial of Exod. 12:3ff. and 18ff.). The Christian’s body is covered by redemption as well as his soul; indeed, his body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, and sins of the flesh defile that temple. Having been bought with a price, the Christian is no longer his own and therefore must glorify God in his body (6:15–20).

Yet, despite this serious lapse of discipline in the church, some of the Corinthian Christians had been taking legal action against fellow-believers for the settlement of petty disputes (6:1ff.). To drag brothers in the faith before secular pagan courts instead of resolving their quarrels in a spirit of Christian love within the community of the church or being willing to endure wrongs without retaliation, was something that shocked Paul profoundly (6:5–7). It was to ignore the fact that Christians are to judge angels—“how much more things that pertain to this life?” (6:3); and that unrighteous and unregenerate men, however exalted their authority in this world, will not inherit the kingdom of God (6:9). The expression “Know ye not …” occurs no less than seven times in chapters 3 to 6 (3:16; 5:6; 6:3, 9, 15, 16, 19). It implies a rebuke to the Corinthians and the Apostle’s disappointment that believers who had been enriched with all knowledge should have permitted such disharmony and irregularity to flourish within their circle. Their behaviour could not be reconciled with their knowledge.

Answers To Questions

The main purpose of chapters 7 to 16 is to answer a number of questions which the Corinthian Christians had asked in a letter sent to Paul (possibly in response to an earlier, but no longer extant, letter of his to them, to which he refers in 5:9). This is apparent from the clause which introduces this section of the epistle: “Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote …” (7:1) and from the repetition of the phrase “now concerning …” at the beginning of chapters 8, 12, and 16. The matters in question are as follows:

(i) Whether or not to marry (ch. 7).—The unmarried person has greater freedom for the service of the Lord (v. 32f), but it is no sin to marry (v. 28), and it is certainly better to marry than to burn with passion (v. 9). He offers advice to persons in a variety of circumstances. Paul’s remarks should be understood within the setting of the time of stress through which the young Church was then passing (v. 26).

(ii) Whether or not to eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols (chs. 8 to 10).—An idol is nothing, a no-god, for there is but one God (8:1–6), and a Christian has reasonable liberty in deciding an issue of this kind, provided always that through the exercise of this liberty he does not place a stumblingblock in the way of a brother who is weaker and less well instructed than himself (8:7–13). Paul’s great concern is that nothing should hinder the Gospel of Christ (9:12, 16, 19ff.). Self-control in all things is important (9:24–27). Christians should be warned by the example of the Israelites who, privileged and blessed like themselves, had fallen away into idolatry, committed fornication (idolatry and impurity are always closely connected) and shown gross ingratitude, with the result that God’s displeasure had come upon them (10:1–13). Believers are subject to the same temptations, but the same God is ever at hand to deliver them (10:13). They must therefore flee from idolatry (10:14ff.), remembering that, while everything may be lawful, everything is not edifying, that they have to consider others as well as themselves (10:23f.), and that all they do should be done to the glory of God (10:31).

(iii) How spiritual or charismatic gifts should be used in the Church (chs. 12–14). The Holy Spirit apportions different gifts and functions to different individuals in accordance with his sovereign will (12:1–11), not, however, with the intention that those so favored should become individualistic; for they must always remember that they are all members of the one body, mutually interdependent, so that there should be no schism in the body; and this applies equally to apostles as to those who exercise some humbler function (12:12–30). In all and above all they are to follow after charity (12:31; 14:1), which the Apostle extols in the famous hymn of chapter 13. Charity, unlike themselves, is not puffed up (13:4) and will outlast the more spectacular gifts such as prophecies, tongues, and knowledge (13:8). The right use of the charismatic gifts is explained in chapter 14. If they are productive of discord, disorderliness, and unintelligent worship (as they had been in the Church at Corinth), then they are being misused. Everything must be done with the understanding (14:9, 15, 20), for the edification of the church (14:12, 26) and in a decent and orderly manner (14:40).

(iv) How money should be collected for the relief of the poverty-stricken saints at Jerusalem (16:1 ff.). Regularly, on the first day of each week, every one was to lay by money according to the measure of his prosperity, so that there might be no feverish and forced last-minute collection when Paul arrived to receive and convey their gifts to Jerusalem.

There are three other matters on which Paul writes in this epistle and which have not so far come within the scope of our survey. They are dealt with in chapters 11 and 15. Firstly, the Apostle insists on the unseemliness of women having their heads uncovered during public worship (11:2–16). This may well have been another subject about which the Corinthians had written to Paul requesting instruction. Secondly, he rebukes them sternly because of deplorable excesses of selfishness and irreverence which, so he had learnt, characterized their gatherings together to partake of the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34). This passage contains the earliest of the four New Testament accounts of our Lord’s institution of this sacrament.

Thirdly, there is the great fifteenth chapter explaining the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. Either their letter had informed him, or he had learnt in some other way, that some among them were affirming that there was no such thing as resurrection after death (v. 12). Paul emphasizes that Christ’s resurrection is an indisputable historic fact (vv. 1–8); that it is an indispensable article of the Gospel (vv. 13–19); that it is the guarantee, as the firstfruits of the ultimate harvest, of the future resurrection of all who fall asleep in Him (vv. 20–34); that the resurrection body is incorruptible, glorious, dynamic, spiritual (vv. 35–49); that those who are still alive at Christ’s coming will also share in this wonderful transformation (vv. 50–54); that through our Lord Jesus Christ God even now gives us the victory over sin and death (vv. 55–57); and that the knowledge of these great truths should cause us to be “stedfast, unmoveable, and always abounding in the work of the Lord,” assured that our labour in the Lord is not in vain (v. 58).

Finally, it will be seen that in his doctrine of the Church, as it emerges from this epistle, Paul was no perfectionist. Despite the shameful excesses and aberrations which it has been necessary for him to censure, despite their warring factions, their inflation with pride, their uncharitableness, despite their toleration of the most degrading vice and grave irreverence and disorderliness in public worship, and despite the fact that some among them were even denying the resurrection of the dead, he still addresses them as the Church of God (1:2); for the marks of the true Church are still to be found in Corinth, and the calling of Almighty God cannot be undone by hostile powers, however satanic, in their midst. (See Calvin’s comments on 1 Cor. 1:2 and also Inst. IV, i, 14.)

Literature

For English-speaking readers works by the following commentators may be recommended: Chrysostom (fourth century), Calvin (sixteenth century), Charles Hodge (1835, republished 1953), Lightfoot (on the Greek text of the first seven chapters only, posthumously published, 1895, in Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul), Robertson and Plummer (1911: International Critical Commentary, on the Greek text) and F. W. Grosheide (1953: New International Commentary on the New Testament under the Editorship of Professor N. B. Stonehouse).

PHILIP EDGCUMBE HUGHES

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).