Ideas

The Word Of God Will Not Be Bound

The Word Of God Will Not Be Bound

Creation and preservation, revelation and redemption, resurrection and judgment: in all these the agent is Jesus Christ, the Word of God. This eternal Word of God cannot be bound.

This eternal Word of God is sovereign. Lord of nature and of man, he encompasses the cosmos with his purpose, “upholding all things by the word of his power” (Heb. 1:3), Throughout the far-flung galaxies his mighty hand of creation, his pierced hand of redemption, his waiting hand of judgment, probes the destinies of men and of nations. This eternally sovereign Word of God cannot be bound.

This eternally sovereign Word of God is incarnate. “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). “In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col. 2:9). This one who was seen and heard and handled of men, “who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25) is still incarnate: raised and exalted to the Father’s right hand he ever liveth to make intercession “in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:24). This incarnate Word of God cannot be bound.

“I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending (saith the Lord) which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8).

“I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12).

“I am the living bread which cometh down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world” (John 6:51). “Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day” (John 6:40).

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep” (John 10:11). “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand” (John 10:28).

“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? (John 11:25 f.).

This Word of God written lives and abides forever: It cannot be bound.

Atheism and skepticism may darken the spiritual skies, but only for a season. Communism and secularism may flaunt their challenge at the face of God, but only for a season. Critics may scissor the Scriptures to myth and legend; science may fling the supernatural from its laboratories; industry may scrap the Word of God as a poor risk; society may dismiss him as an embarrassment; governments may unseat him as superfluous—but only for a season.

The eternal and sovereign Word of God, and the Word of God written, keep shining in the darkness, and the darkness cannot overwhelm them. The Word is not, will not, cannot be bound.

Citadels of heathendom crumble before his power. Tinged even in our day with the blood of martyrs, the onflowing stream of missionary endeavor inundates satanic demons of superstition, fear and despair with the Word of God. Unleashed are the purifying floods of love, of hope and of a sound mind. The Word of God bursts the bonds of heathendom. It cannot, it will not be bound.

The vagaries of philosophy, the conceits of learning, must quake at his voice. The wisdom of this world is foolishness with God (1 Cor. 3:19). “He takes the wise in their own craftiness” (Job 5:13). But to the despised, and foolish, who have ears to hear, Christ the Word of God is made wisdom. With the foolishness of God that is wiser than men, they confound the wise. In their weakness they confound the mighty.

The imprisoning subtleties of unregenerate learning must yield before the Word of God that “is quick and powerful … a discerner (critic) of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Heb. 4:12). He cannot, he will not be bound.

All of civilization itself, even in its historical magnitude of centuries upon centuries, cannot restrain the Word of God; indeed, it is preserved by the Word, often unknown to itself, for a higher calling than it owns. Before him who ordained the peoples of the world into his created universe; before him who has temporarily yielded earthly government into the self-seeking and warring hands of men, all nations of the world shall bow, kings and queens shall bow, every knee shall bow. “Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing” (Isa. 40:15). “All nations are before him as nothing; and they are counted to him less than nothing, and vanity” (Isa. 40:17). “Have ye not known? have ye not heard?… It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in: That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity” (Isa. 40:21 ff.).

But of the increase of government and peace of the Word of God, sovereign, incarnate, coming again, there shall be no end. He will “establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even forever … the government shall be upon his shoulder” (Isa. 9:6 f.). This Word of God cannot, will not be bound. The times and the seasons are at his command.

This triumphant Word of God is the risen Christ. Crucified, sealed in a guarded tomb, he could not be bound, could not be holden, as the King James version quaintly expresses it, (even) of death. Christ is risen. As Paul, the aged apostle, exhorted young Timothy: “Remember that Jesus Christ … was raised from the dead … the Word of God is not bound” (2 Tim. 2:8 f.).

In the Easter issue of Reader’s Digest, Dr. Clarence Hall contributes a moving article, “You Can’t Hold Back the Dawn.” He recalls the pre-dawn darkness at the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem, where the sun broke suddenly over the horizon, casting the dawn’s bright halo over a party of Easter worshippers singing anthems. The article emphasizes Christianity as a religion of an empty tomb and of the dawn. The amazing refrain, “Jesus is alive,” sounded by the apostles to the world of their day, echoes to our own century, accompanied by victories that Jesus continues to work, for he is “the man who would not stay dead.”

“There is something familiar,” Dr. Hall writes, “about the account of Pilate’s attempt to shut Christ away in a tomb. It has happened in every age.” Dr. Hall ventures to ask whether, in our dark day, the Christian faith is to be written off as a failure. And in reply he casts this glance at some of its achievements:

“It has fought and won over slavery in all its forms.… It has shaken the systems of caste and class.… It has produced and fostered the finest in art, music, literature.… It has marched along with the explorers and pioneers, helping to open up new frontiers.… It has gone into every field of human distress.… It has brought the laboring man up from contempt and bondage.… It has elevated womanhood, abolished infanticide, ennobled marriage.… It has authored the freedom of man, has been—and still is—the guardian and sentinel of liberty.…

“The God of Easter is forever coming out of the tombs in which evil forces try to confine him.… A resurrection dawn is coming—and nothing can hold it back.… Easter is the birthday of vibrant hope for the individual. It is also a terrible warning to every evil power that preys on mankind—a warning that says that truth is again breaking out of its tomb.”

What glorious reason for the Christian church to take heart in this time of tyranny and trouble! “You can’t hold back the dawn.” Indeed! Christ is risen. Who can extinguish the Light of the world? The Word of God will not be bound.

In an era of foreign missions when doors once open to Western missionaries are unmistakably closing, native converts are going as missionaries to distant lands. National churches in India, for example, are sponsoring missionaries to Africa.

Today in Ecuador five widows of five martyred missionaries glory rather than grieve in God’s way of reaching the Auca Indians.

Hostility to biblical supernaturalism emanating over the years from naturalistic influences at Columbia University Teachers’ College, and even from religious circles, would seem to have immunized New York City against evangelical Christianity. Yet on May 15 Billy Graham proclaims the Gospel in Madison Square Garden.

Abroad and at home, in silent jungles and in teeming cities, the Light is shining in the darkness and the darkness cannot overwhelm it. The Word of God will not be bound.

Is The Elder Brother Also A Prodigal?

An ever increasing number of ministers turn to the Scriptures for normative theological knowledge and inspiration for preaching. Dissatisfied with the husks of Liberalism they turn to the milk and meat of the revealed Gospel. This calls for merriment and rejoicing in the Father’s House. The joyful welcome, however, is often marred by grumbling and even animosity on the part of the elder brother. Suspicious and unforgiving, he would deny a joyful reception to the prodigal.

Although the repentance may be genuine, evidence of the sojourn in the far country may still cling to the prodigal. Biblical knowledge, theological discernment, practical application of the Gospel may not measure up to exacting standards. The Father, however, hastens to clothe and feed. He wastes no time in bitter criticism.

The resentful elder brother must engage in intensive soul searching. A true son of God manifests the spirit of the Father. Like the Father he must hasten to welcome those who turn away from the husks of error. The real prodigal may be the elder brother who refuses to show a forgiving spirit.

Theology

The Resurrection

Gordon H. Clark

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

Power Of Hume’s Argument

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

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

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

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

Improbability And Probability

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

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

Flaw In Hume’S Logic

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

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

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

Undeniable Historical Facts

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

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

Historians And The Records

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

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

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

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

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

No Consistent Alternative

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Story

Calvary Hill

Dorothy L. Sayers

Sequence 1 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

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

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

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

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

(Laughter)

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

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

3RD SOLDIER: Yes. Here you are.

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

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

1ST SOLDIER: Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

2ND SOLDIER: Hand me the mallet.

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

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

Sequence 2 (The High Priest’s House)

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

CAIAPHAS: Why not, Nicodemus?

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

CAIAPHAS: Are you saying that it might be truth?

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

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

NICODEMUS: No.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequence 3 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(CROWDbackground)

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

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

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

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

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

MARY MAGDALEN: Marcellus—do you know me?

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

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

CENTURION: Mary of Magdala!

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

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

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

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

(TheSOLDIERSlaugh)

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

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

2ND SOLDIER: Not without paying.

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

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

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

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

MARY MAGDALEN(sings):

Soldier, soldier, why will you roam?

The flowers grow white in the hills at home,

Where the little brown brook runs down to the sea—

Come again, home again, love, to me.

(Here the SOLDIERS join in the chorus)

Pick up your feet for the last long leagues,

No more pack-drill, no more fatigues,

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

Company halt! and stand at ease.

Sunlight, starlight, twilight and dawn,

The door unbarred, and the latch undrawn

Waiting for the lad that I——

(She breaks down)

I can’t go on.

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

4TH SOLDIER: The prisoners’ clothes, Centurion.

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

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

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

1ST SOLDIER: Temper, temper!…

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

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

2ND SOLDIER: Toss for it, then.

3RD SOLDIER: Anybody got the dice?

1ST SOLDIER: Here you are.

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

(The dice rattle again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GESTAS: T’chah!

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

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

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

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

Sequence 4 (The Roman Barracks)

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

ADJUTANT: Programme of the regimental sports, sir.

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

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

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

ADJUTANT: Since 6 a.m., sir.

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

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

CHILIARCH: Proclus?

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

CHILIARCH: Right. Send him in.

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

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

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

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

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

CHILIARCH: What man? Jesus of Nazareth?

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

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

PROCLUS: I quite understand, sir.

CHILIARCH: Old legionary, aren’t you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sequence 5 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

CALPURNIA: What’s the time, Flavius?

FLAVIUS: It must be close on noon.

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

GLAUCUS: It’s not meant to be quick.

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

GLAUCUS: Sometimes they linger on for three days.

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

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

FLAVIUS: The god will die, then?

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

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

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

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

GLAUCUS: Perhaps the gods are angry after all.

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

(Rattle of dice)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOHN: Yes, Mary—there is a change.

MARY VIRGIN: My son is dying.

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

MARY VIRGIN: Hush, he is trying to speak.

JESUS: Mother!

MARY VIRGIN: Yes, dear?

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

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

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

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

(Pause)

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

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

PROCLUS: Squad, halt!

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

MARCELLUS: Proclus?

PROCLUS: Yes.

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

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

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

JESUS: Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani!

1ST SOLDIER: Gods! what was that?

2ND SOLDIER: It startled me.

3RD SOLDIER: It was the Nazarene.

4TH SOLDIER: I thought he was dead.

PROCLUS: What did he say?

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

2ND SOLDIER: He called on Elias for help.

PROCLUS: Elias?

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

PROCLUS: Young man, what did your master say?

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

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

JESUS: I am thirsty.

PROCLUS: Have we any water?

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

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

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

1ST SOLDIER: I can’t reach so far.

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

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

Sequence 6 (The Governor’s Palace)

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

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

(Wind and waves)

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

“Pan ho megas tethneke——

Pan ho megas tethneke——”)

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

(Murmur of voices, starting almost in a whisper)

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

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

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

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

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

PILATE: The gods avert the omen.

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

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

Sequence 7 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

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

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

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

(Earthquake)

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

(Earthquake repeated, and dying away. Pause)

Sequence 8 (At The Foot Of The Cross)

BALTHAZAR: Centurion!

PROCLUS: Sir?

BALTHAZAR: For whom are these gallows erected?

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

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

PROCLUS: Indeed, sir? Where was that?

BALTHAZAR: At the court of King Herod.

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

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

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

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

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

1ST SOLDIER: Excuse me, Centurion.

PROCLUS: Yes?

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

PROCLUS: Quite right.

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

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

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

JOHN: Mary, Mary!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JOSEPH: Did he say that indeed?

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

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

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

JOHN: What was that third gift, Mother?

MARY VIRGIN: Frankincense.

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

Scene III (The Governor’s Palace)

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

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

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

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

PILATE: Well?

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

PILATE: It has nothing to do with me.

CAIAPHAS: The bodies of criminals are Roman property.

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

CAIAPHAS: Excellency——

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

(A party ofSOLDIERSpasses in the distance, singing)

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

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

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

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

Cover Story

Understanding Calvary

Harold John Ockenga

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

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

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

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

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

Why They Couldn’t Understand Calvary

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Believers Understand Calvary

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Can Never Be Known Of Calvary

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

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

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

Witness Of The Disciples

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cover Story

Propitiation

Roger Nicole

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

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

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

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

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

Pagan Use Of Terms

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Profound Difference

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

Relevant Observations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We Quote:

MADAME CHIANG KAI-SHEK

First Lady of Free China

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

F. W. DILLISTONE

Dean of Liverpool Cathedral

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

Cover Story

Twentieth-Century Scientists and the Resurrection of Christ

Wilbur M. Smith

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

Importance Of Scientific Faith

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

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

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

An Unmistakable Inquiry

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

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

Preliminary Observations

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

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

Four Out Of Five Waver

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

Unbelief In The Churches

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

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

The Command To Witness

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

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

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

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

Relevant Observations

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

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

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

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

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

Teaching And Miracles Linked

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

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

Worldly Wisdom And Unbelief

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

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

Men Of Science Who Believe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Call To Christian Colors

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

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

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

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

Preacher In The Red

A SWEET VOICED DOCTOR

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

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

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

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

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

Theology

Review of Current Religious Thought: April 01, 1957

Philip Edgcumbe Hughes

The question of the relationship between the Church and the State remains a perennial problem for the Christian. Four hundred years ago at the time of the Reformation the principle in England was that of one State, one Church, so that every Englishman was regarded as a member both of the State and of the Church. One thing that history has taught us is that everybody cannot be forced into the same ecclesiastical mould and that between fellow-Christians there must be room for conscientious differences of judgment and practice where forms of worship are concerned. Failure to recognize this on the part of the authorities in England led to the hazardous sailing of the Pilgrim Fathers for the New World in the search of that freedom. Subsequently, as toleration gained ground, the Free Churches came into being—free, that is, or independent of official connection with the State-while the Church of England continues to this day to maintain its historic bonds with this Protestant realm of England.

The Rev. Edward Rogers, a Methodist minister, writing in the January issue of The London Quarterly and Holborn Review on the subject of “Christians and the Modern State,” speaks of industrialization, urbanization, centralization and secularization as the four distinctive features of the modern State, and asserts that the Christian, “simply because he is a Christian, confronts the State in two inseparably related ways,” as one who, “whatever the social or political order, … must seek to live by faith and love. The political order,” he says, “may be corrupt or cruel, the economic order unjust and the moral code of society debased. Nevertheless, he will be generous and just, truthful and honest, kind and forbearing.”

We are reminded that political liberty is “a rare and precious thing, hardly won and easily lost” and that it “demands and depends upon men and women of integrity and charity, ready to acknowledge that they are their brother’s keepers.” It is, in fact, the believing Christian who is “the preserver of sound values in a society that would otherwise decay.” Mr. Rogers points to loneliness and a slackening of the social ties that strengthen life as resulting from living in the modern State. These deficiencies, it is true, are made good by church life, which offers “fellowship and shared responsibilities.” Saying this, however, he makes the following very salutary comment on what has come to be known as the social gospel: “What went wrong with the ‘social gospel’ in the generation immediately past was that it put ‘social’ first, and a diluted gospel second. Men and women of noble intention strove to implement the Sermon on the Mount while pushing into the background the Cross and the Resurrection—and found that their fine phrases and benevolent exhortations splashed ineffectively on the rocks of sin.”

Who will not agree with his conclusion that the doctrine of the sovereignty of God is “a doctrine desperately needed to check the blasphemous and destructive doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the State”; for the State “is the servant of God, not the master of men?”

The dualistic doctrine that the care of the State extends only to the body and the care of the Church only to the soul is described as “entirely unchristian” in an article on “Church and State” in the January–March number of The Church Quarterly Review by C. H. Glasson, who, appropriately enough, is a lay member of the Church of England and also a civil servant. He affirms that the Church “will continue to assert that it is different in kind from other voluntary organizations,” and that it “will not even consent to reserve its gospel for its members, as Freemasons do the oddities they indulge in.”

Regarding the function of the Church of England as the “established” church of the realm, Mr. Glasson is of the opinion that its disestablishment would weaken both itself and also the Free Churches. He imagines that there are few Christians who would be glad to see the sovereign profess no religion or the proceedings of Parliament open without a prayer—with the exception of the Roman Church, which, he pointedly observes, is “the one nonconformist body which might have cause for satisfaction.”

In a consideration of the politics of the Church of Rome. He draws our attention to the fact that in the Roman Missal there are prayers whose design is the undoing of the work of the Reformation; that in it the English are spoken of as having been “the dowry of the blessed virgin Mary and subjects of Peter,” and that among the Bidding Prayers for Good Friday there is the distinctly political note, under the heading “For the Emperor,” explaining that this prayer is “omitted, the Holy Roman Empire being vacant.”

Mr. Glasson warns—that the Roman Church is far from having abandoned its political objectives. “In this country [England],” he says, “it plays the role of a minority, biding its time. If it were as strong in England as our Church now is, the State would be forced to define more or less regularly its relationship to it. The State would, ultimately, have not merely to define relationships with its own subjects in their church but with a foreign power.” And that, he adds, is “from the national point of view, the most significant difference between the Roman Church and our own.” Past history shows that English Roman Catholics have been relieved of their duty of loyalty under papal direction. But we are rightly admonished that these are political issues which by no means belong only to the dead past. Evidence of this is provided by citing the well known Roman Catholic writer and apologist Jacques Maritain, who “can still defend the old thesis of the Elizabethan Jesuits that excommunication of a Prince by Rome relieves the subject of all duty of obedience, and that a Pope is indeed a temporal sovereign because if he were not he could not avoid being a subject.”

The political aims and ambitions of the Roman Catholic Church are no less total and arrogant than are those of Communism. The Church-State connection in England is designed to ensure, amongst other things, a Protestant succession to the throne and security from a relapse into a state of subjection to the absolute tyranny of a foreign potentate claiming unrestricted authority over the souls and bodies of men. These ends are thoroughly desirable, but it must always be remembered that the only effective safeguard against the domination of darkness, whether civil or ecclesiastical or both, is the promotion of that vital evangelical religion whereby men’s hearts and minds are enlightened and liberated by obedience to the Word of God which liveth and abideth for ever.

This review of live spiritual and moral issues debated in the secular and religious press of the day is prepared successively for CHRISTIANITY TODAY by four evangelical scholars: Professor William Mueller of the United States, Professor G. C. Berkouwer of the Netherlands, Professor John H. Gerstner of the United States and Rev. Phillip Hughes of England.

Books

Book Briefs: April 1, 1957

Liberal Leader

The Living of These Days, by Harry Emerson Fosdick. Harper and Brothers, New York. $4.00.

Harry Emerson Fosdick’s friends have prevailed on him to write his autobiography, and he has done so under the title, The Living of These Days. It is part of a prayer, taken from his hymn, God of Grace and God of Glory: “Grant us wisdom, grant us courage, For the living of these days.” The title is apt, for not only was Fosdick strongly influenced by the events of the last seven or eight decades, he also exerted a considerable influence on that period of human history. To this reviewer, who is not a great many years younger than Fosdick, the reading of this biography seemed like a review of the history of his generation.

No one who has heard or read Fosdick needs to be told that his style is superb. This does not indicate one that is flowery and certainly not one that is wordy. Fosdick’s style excels in precision, simplicity, directness, forcefulness and ruggedness. His humor is as wholesome as it is natural. One of the most pleasing features of this volume is the author’s humility. To cite but one of numerous instances, concerning his teaching of homiletics at Union Seminary, he says, “I hope that I helped the students, but I am unable to express how much they helped me” (p. 119). Another laudable characteristic of the book is its candor.

Harry Emerson Fosdick received his formal education at Colgate University and Union Theological Seminary of New York. He has been pastor of the First Baptist Church of Montclair, New Jersey, and the First Presbyterian and Riverside churches of New York City. He has served Union Seminary as part-time professor of homiletics and practical theology. He has preached and lectured in several lands and has written some twenty-six books.

The aforesaid salient facts derive most of their significance from his theological pilgrimage. He informs his readers that he began as a fundamentalist. However, as a young man he found fundamentalism incompatible with intellectual honesty. His problem was how to retain Christianity without committing intellectual suicide. Theological liberalism, or modernism, proved to be the answer. He accepted many of the conclusions of the so-called higher biblical criticism and rejected the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture. He felt that the doctrines of historic Christianity were but the temporary, and hence changeable, framework for abiding truth. That formula he applied to certain explicit teachings of the Bible as well as to teachings deduced by the church from the Bible. He denied such supernatural events as the virgin birth of Jesus and his bodily resurrection. He deprecated the orthodox formulations of such dogmas as the Trinity, the deity of Christ and the satisfaction of divine penal justice by Christ’s death on the cross. He came to base his theology, not on the Bible as the infallibly inspired Word of God, but, after the manner of Schleiermacher and Ritschl, on religious experience. He taught his students to base their preaching on the Bible as the record of the religious experience of certain saints of antiquity rather than the authoritative Word of God. Withal he fell under the spell of the social gospel of Walter Rauschenbusch. The fundamentalist-modernist controversy in the Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of the nineteen-twenties centered about his teaching. When a general assembly asked him to subscribe to the system of doctrine contained in the confessions of that denomination and to its principles of church government, he declined in the interest of honesty to do so. He wanted the membership of his churches to be inclusive, not only in the sense of embracing all races and strata of society, but also in the sense of “a liberal fellowship ready for an adventure into unrestricted interdenominationalism” (p. 183). To be sure, after the Second World War he saw, with others, that modernism was in need of several adjustments. For instance, it had been too optimistic about human nature and hence about the future of the human race, it had stressed the divine immanence out of due proportion to the divine transcendence and it had accommodated itself too much to the prevailing culture instead of challenging that culture. But Fosdick did not cease to be a modernist. Even the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, particularly in its early expressions, was not nearly liberal enough for him. Now that Brunner has mellowed in his attitude toward liberalism, Fosdick is hoping for a synthesis of liberalism and neo-orthodoxy.

What struck the reviewer perhaps more than anything else in his perusal of this autobiography was the author’s slighting of orthodox scholarship. He denounces fundamentalism scathingly for its “obscurantism,” and in so doing he takes to task especially William Jennings Bryan. Now Bryan, sincere Christian layman that he no doubt was, did not rate as a theologian. That there are fundamentalists who cling tenaciously to foolish notions is beyond dispute. For instance, the notions that the human authors of the Bible were mere robots, that each and every statement in the Bible must be interpreted literally and that man was created in the physical image of God do indeed fall under the head of obscurantism. But pray, what orthodox theologian of any note holds to such nonsense? This reviewer cannot suppress the question whether Fosdick has ever made a serious study of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, of such protestant confessions, to name but two, as those of Augsburg and Westminster and of the works of contemporaries as B. B. Warfield and Herman Bavinck. And why does he completely ignore the man who proved to be not only the most militant but also the most scholarly defender of orthodoxy in that Presbyterian conflict in which Fosdick himself was so deeply involved—J. G. Machen? Here seems to be a most serious lacuna in Fosdick’s education. Or is it possible that he would brush aside as unscientific the noblest literary products of orthodoxy? But that would be so preposterous as to be well-nigh unbelievable, for their authors excelled in erudition and it may be said without in the least belittling Fosdick that in point of theological scholarship he does not deserve to stoop down and unloose the latchet of the shoes of any one of them. To refer again to Machen, even the most extreme liberals being his judges, he was a scholar to be reckoned with. In A Preface to Morals Walter Lippmann stated that Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism was more convincing than the reasoning of his modernist opponents, and H. L. Mencken in his characteristic way eulogized Machen shortly after his death in 1937 by saying that he was to Bryan what the Matterhorn is to a wart.

This reviewer intends no insinuation that this biography is wholly devoid of good ideas. We must all assent to the improvements Fosdick advocates on the older liberalism. But even here Fosdick does not give historic orthodoxy the credit due it for those ideas. A few examples follow. Says Fosdick: “Static orthodoxies are a menace to the Christian cause” (p. 230). But orthodoxy has always said that. One of its tenets is the progressive guidance of the church by the Holy Spirit into the truth. Therefore it ever seeks to bring forth new things as well as old out of the treasure of the Word of God. Such a conservative church as the Christian Reformed has in recent decades drawn up a tentative formulation of the doctrine of common grace, and the Presbyterian Church in 1788 amended its Westminster Confession of Faith to eliminate Erastianism. Baptist Roger Williams, no doubt, deserves some credit for that change. Fosdick insists that the preacher must deal with social problems. While it is true, on the one hand, that orthodoxy rejects the modernist brand of social gospel and, on the other, that dispensationalists would preach an exclusively individualistic gospel, many conservatives have long insisted that the social implications of the Gospel must be stressed in the pulpit. Professor Louis Berkhof of Calvin Seminary did that in a lecture on The Church and Social Problems, delivered in 1913. The undersigned did likewise in an article, The Christian Pulpit and Social Problems, published in the Westminster Theological Journal. Fosdick declares: “Faith and reason are not antithetical opposites” (p. 258). But what orthodox theologian of any stature ever thought they were? Paraphrasing a saying of George A. Buttrick to the effect that “there is only one thing worse than a devil and that is an educated devil,” Fosdick comments: “That emphasis is a newcomer in America” (p. 271). But this reviewer had it impressed on his soul by the advocates of Christian day schools when he was yet a mere boy. Fosdick has come to the conclusion: “Neo-orthodoxy is right in stressing the necessity and primacy of God’s self-revelation, if we are to know him” (p. 256). But why credit neo-orthodoxy with a truth which has been obvious to orthodoxy for ages? Fosdick agrees thoroughly with Brunner “that man’s wickedness is a dreadful, desperate fact, and that man, left to his own unaided devices in a materialistic universe empty of the saving grace of God, is doomed” (p. 252). But that is the very essence of historic orthodoxy—provided, of course, the term “grace of God” be taken in the Augustinian sense, not the Pelagian. In short, in later years Fosdick has moved in the direction of orthodoxy, yet he keeps insisting that he is a modernist. No doubt, basically he still is.

As good a way as any of stating the point at issue between Fosdick’s modernism and historic orthodoxy is this: the latter acknowledges God’s infallible Word as the test of truth; the latter makes experience the norm. Of course, it does not follow that Fosdick casts the Bible overboard; according to him it is itself the record, albeit a fallible one, of the religious experience of great saints of old. But in seeking solutions for such problems as that of God and immortality Fosdick does not rely on any authoritative statements of Scripture but turns to human experience. For that reason he cannot but flounder about, much as a vessel without rudder or compass. Small wonder that his attitude toward war has changed so radically. Nor is it altogether strange that in spite of his high regard for Jesus of Nazareth he rejects his teaching of hell. If truths are divorced from their formulations, they become vague indeed. Besides, many truths simply cannot be experienced. At best theology of experience will lead to probabilities, never to certainties. Fosdick himself so much as grants that and even more when he writes: “Concerning every human experience theories of explanation and interpretation are essential, but however confidently they may be held, their probable insufficiency must be assumed and their displacement by more adequate ways of thinking positively hoped for” (p. 230).

Is modernism Christianity? Fosdick is sure that it is Christianity at its best and he defines it thus: “For me the essence of Christianity is incarnate in the personality of the Master, and it means basic faith in God, in the divinity revealed in Christ, in personality’s sacredness and possibilities, and in the fundamental principles of life’s conduct which Jesus of Nazareth exhibited” (p. 269). But that definition is quite inadequate. For one thing, it makes the incarnate Son of God a Christian, which he certainly was not. A Christian is a sinner saved by grace; a sinner who, conscious of his need of salvation and realizing that he cannot save himself, abandons himself to the Christ crucified; and a sinner who loves the Lord who bought him with his blood and lovingly serves that Lord. Such is the Christian, and Christianity is first of all God’s solution for the problem of sin—its guilt and penalty as well as its power and pollution.

In his early work, The Theology of Crisis, Brunner vigorously denounced modernism as “a religion which has nothing in common with Christianity except a few words” (p. 261). But Brunner was not then and is not now an exponent of the historic Christian faith. In 1924, the very year in which Fosdick delivered at Yale the Lyman Beecher Lectures on Preaching under the title The Modern Use of the Bible, Machen wrote his Christianity and Liberalism. The point of that book was that Modernism is not Christianity. Five years later Lippmann observed that Machen had not been refuted. That still holds true today. This reviewer thinks his argument irrefutable.

Christianity is based squarely on the Bible as the Word of the living God. Modernism is based on religious experience. Christianity is history, doctrine and life—all three; and they stand and fall together. In that history such supernatural events as Jesus’ virgin birth and bodily resurrection loom large. Modernism denies them. But the apostle Paul said, “If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain and your faith is also vain” (1 Corinthians 15:14). At the heart of Christian doctrine lies the Pauline teaching that, being justified by Christ’s blood, believers will be saved from wrath through him (Romans 5:9). Modernism preaches another gospel. In his sermon Shall the Fundamentalists Win? Fosdick spoke with disgust of those who believe “that the blood of our Lord, shed in a substitutionary death, placates an alien Deity and makes possible welcome for the returning sinner” (quoted in Christianity and Liberalism, p. 120). The Christian ethic is rooted in Christian doctrine, notably in the doctrine of the atonement. Paul has enjoined Christians to glorify God in their body and their spirit because they are “bought with a price” (1 Corinthians 6:20). That price was the precious blood of Christ. The ethic of modernism disdains blood-theology. Inspired Paul being the judge, modernism is not Christianity.

R. B. KUIPER

Full Commitment

Christian: Commit Yourself: By Paul S. Rees. Revell, $2.00.

Paul Rees is pastor of the First Covenant Church of Minneapolis. The influence of his Christian ministry, however, has extended far beyond the confines of his own parish; it has been felt throughout the entire nation. His books on stewardship, evangelism and the Holy Spirit have blessed many lives.

The 10 messages in this volume are all directed toward securing from the listeners a full commitment to Christ and his cause. Decisions at depth constitute the major thrust of each soul-probing sermon. Thus, the paramount aim of this preacher is to recapture the dedication, devotion and discipline that gave such irrepressible fervor and undaunted daring to the early Christian movement. Following the announcement of each subject, Dr. Rees stipulates the kind of commitment he seeks from the particular message. For example, in the sermon on “The Supreme Surrender” he begins by summarizing the commitment he desires: “I will seek to know and do the will of God in every area of my life.” After announcing the subject “The Badge of Royalty” the commitment sought is “I will accept responsibilities for service in my church.”

Dr. Rees quotes General Omar Bradley as saying, “The most completely committed person I have met is a convinced Communist.” Recognizing the challenging truth in a statement of this kind, Dr. Rees has dedicated himself to the holy task of activating and mobilizing Christian people to a more drastic and ardent commitment to Christ and his cause in this world.

The Christian minister will find here new illustrations and perhaps new insights expressed in new ways. The new Christian who reads this book will be able to learn more about the nature of the deeper Christian life and the clarification of many of his own embryonic thoughts.

JOHN R. RICHARDSON

Render To Caesar

The State in the New Testament, by Oscar Cullman. Scribners, New York. $2.50.

That the New Testament has something to say about the State will come as a surprise to many people. Secularists have assumed that politics have nothing to do with piety; sectarians have imagined that piety may be divorced from politics. But the New Testament has much to teach us on this subject. We are indebted to Cullman for his careful exposition of the Christian view of the State.

In the various chapters of this book the author discusses, “Jesus and the Resistance Movement of the Zealots,” “Jesus’ Condemnation by the Roman State,” “Paul and the State,” “The State in the Johannine Apocalypse.” There is also an excursus dealing with “the powers that be” mentioned in Romans 13, viewing the State as the effective agent of invisible (angelic) powers.

According to Cullman, the attitude of the New Testament to the State is one of “neither denial nor affirmation.”

The State is to be accepted rather than denied since it has been ordered of God for our own good. The State is intended of God to be his servant in the administration of justice, and that is why Jesus refused to go along with the Zealots who renounced the State unreservedly and sought to overthrow it.

Nevertheless, the State is not final. There are some things that are not Caesar’s. The totalitarian claims of the State must be resisted. For this reason Jesus refused to agree with the Sadducees whose religious indifference gave the Romans unlimited submission.

Some have regarded the question of the political world order within the framework of the sovereign Lordship of Christ (cf. “The Declaration of Faith Concerning Church and Nation” approved by the Presbyterian Church in Canada, 1955).

Cullman’s emphasis is on the eschatological. In the New Testament witness concerning the State he finds a unity rooted in the tension between present and future. Ordered of God for the present, the State must be recognized by the Christian citizen. Yet in the end, it will pass away. The State is not a final institution with divine authority; therefore the disciple of the Lord will ever be ready to warn and resist when the State transgresses its limits. Only the Christ of the cross, the coming King, is Lord of all.

We have seen the State threaten the Church by political tyranny (Communism), and ecclesiastical forces seek to dominate the State by pretensions to power (Romanism). It has also been disturbing to note the indifference of many professing Christians to political problems and the attitude of the worldling that Christianity is irrelevant to the situations of our time. Most welcome, therefore, is this volume by Cullman. While one may not always agree with the author, no one can fail to profit from his serious and stimulating exposition of the New Testament on the subject of the State.

MARIO D. GANGI

Able Commentary

I and II Thessalouians, by William Hendriksen. Baker, Grand Rapids, 1955. $4.50.

This able commentary, one of a series called New Testament Commentary (upon which the author is at present engaged), covers in a semi-popular fashion Paul’s two letters to the church at Thessalonica.

Dr. Hendriksen is fully abreast with modern scholarship in the realm of New Testament literature and exegesis. However, there is no parade of learning in these pages. The difficult problems of interpretation are usually relegated to footnotes (which do not average one a page). A selected bibliography lists the major works on these epistles, and a more extended bibliography adequately covers the larger literature on this subject.

The book is definitely evangelical and conservative in viewpoint, The Pauline authorship is defended with adequate scholarship. All the arguments against Paul’s authorship are fairly stated and persuasively answered. No one can accuse our author of obscurantism.

One of the most valuable features of this commentary is found in the extended prior to Christ’s parousia. Although there is no precise treatment of the various eschatological views as such, the author’s interpretation naturally leads to a millennial conclusion. This is what we would expect from the author of More Than Conquerors.

In general the reviewer agrees with the theological and eschatological views presented in this excellent commentary. The flaws are few and hard to find. We found a Greek preposition misspelled and incorrectly accented (p. 21). On the same page another Greek preposition is incorrectly accented. A participle appears without accent (p. 48). The Greek word parousia is accented incorrectly (p. 76). A smooth breathing is omitted (p. 135). A present participle is called an aorist participle (p. 142). A Greek infinitive is incorrectly accented (p. 168). The English word “personal” is misspelled (p. 137). “Of repent” should be “to repent” (p. 185). “So that” is always spelled as one word except in two places (pp. 68, 103).

Conservative scholarship cannot be entirely satisfied with the republication of learned and evangelical works that were produced by orthodox scholars of the nineteenth century or earlier. It is good to see an increasing number of conservative books on biblical and theological subjects appearing in our day. We feel confident that Dr. Hendriksen’s contribution to this swelling list of evangelical literature will do much to restore confidence in the orthodox position concerning the New Testament literature. A more useful commentary on Paul’s letters to the church at Thessalonica could hardly be found.

WICK BROOMALL

Reliable Introduction

Second Thoughts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, by F. F. Bruce. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1956. $2.50.

This is just the book to give to the layman who wishes a trustworthy introduction to the now famous Dead Sea Scrolls. The interest which these scrolls has aroused in the public mind is nothing short of remarkable. It is probably no exaggeration to say that they are the most significant archeological discovery of the last thirty years. Inasmuch as this is so, many of the books (and the number of such books is rapidly growing) which discuss the scrolls may tend to overemphasize their importance for the study of the beginnings of Christianity. It cannot be denied that much that has been written on the subject borders on the nonsensical.

If there is any one word which can characterize the present work it is the word “sane.” Professor Bruce gives a remarkably clear and valuable survey of the whole field, and in all his discussion seeks to abide by the facts. He goes as far as the facts allow and no farther. He makes it clear that he is acquainted with the various interpretations of disputed points which have been advanced, but he himself is not interested in pressing them. He is fair in his discussions, and seeks to withhold judgment when judgment must be withheld. For this reason primarily that his work is dependable.

The book is written in a pleasing style, and is well adapted to the layman who is not acquainted with the various technical questions which a proper study of the scrolls involves. One who reads through this work carefully will have a good understanding of the principal points in debate in connection with the scrolls, and he will be prepared for further study. To produce such a book is no easy task, and it is this reviewer’s opinion that the author has done his job in a first-rate fashion.

The principal point at which we are constrained to disagree with the author is in his evaluation of the importance of the Isaiah manuscript with respect to the question of the origin of the prophecy. Professor Bruce thinks that this newly discovered manuscript proves nothing that was not already known. For our part we believe that the manuscript is of unique significance. It makes clear that the book of Isaiah existed in its present form as early as the second century before Christ. Thus it stands as a monumental NO to the views of Bernhard Duhm, the influential German scholar who held that the prophecy did not receive its present form until the first century B.C. This is not a minor point, but one of tremendous importance. For, if there is a first and a second Isaiah, as the overwhelming majority of modern biblical critics affirm, then the witness of the New Testament to the authorship of the prophecy is clearly in error. The Dead Sea manuscript supports the New Testament, and it also renders more difficult attempts to explain the origin of the book of Isaiah on any view other than that of the Bible itself, namely, that Isaiah was himself the author of the entire prophecy.

If the reader wishes a clearly written, accurate, informative introduction to the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, this is the book to obtain.

EDWARD J. YOUNG.

Far East News: April 01, 1957

Philippine Outlook

Religious issues may play a big role in the November election of a president in the Philippine Republic, a country officially dedicated to the Order of the Sacred Heart a few months before the airplane crash in which President Ramon Magsaysay was killed.

Presidential aspirant Claro M. Recto is opposed by Catholics and backed by Protestant leaders.

The former Vice President, Carlos P. Garcia, who assumed duties of the high office shortly after the crash, is a graduate of Silliman University, a Presbyterian institution in Manila. He is a Catholic, however, as was his predecessor.

Secretary of Education Hernandez, strongly Catholic, also perished in the crash, which took 24 lives. Undersecretary of Education Martin Aguilar Jr., a logical choice for the vacant position, is a Protestant, and church observers are intensely interested in seeing who will get the key post.

President Magsaysay was a popular figure among both Catholics and Protestants. Nearly a half-million persons swarmed around Malacanan Palace when the body of the 49-year-old chief executive was brought from the Cebu Island mountainside.

“His fight against communism as one of democracy’s staunchest champions …,” said Philippine Ambassador to the United States, Carlos P. Romulo.

‘The Only Weapon’

Thirty missionaries, representing 24 different mission groups, agreed on the following statement of faith before issuing invitations to all missionaries in Japan for the 1959 Protestant Centennial Conference:

“We believe in the Bible as the fully inspired, infallible Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice.”

Words Of Warning

Christians in China who are permitted to communicate with the West are members of “show case” churches maintained by communists for propaganda purposes, Ambassador Hollington K. Tong of Nationalist China said recently.

The ambassador, speaking at a dinner commemorating the 155th anniversary of First Baptist Church in Washington, D. C., said most Christian groups in China continue to feel severe persecution.

Despite such reports, however, according to Japan Harvest, a 13-man Protestant Japanese delegation is making plans to visit Red China in April and May. The Rev. J. Asano, Japan Biblical Seminary professor and pastor of The Mitake Kyodan Church, will be the delegation leader.

The delegation will be in Red China for communism’s biggest holiday, the May Day Celebration.

Worth Quoting

“This is the day of the larger church, handsome buildings, plush furniture and costly appointments. I’m not against these things. I love them. I break the Tenth Commandment every time I go into one of those spacious ministers’ studies in our new churches. Then I have to remember how easy it is to insulate yourself from your neighbor, especially if he is on the poorer side of town. If we forget him and his work, we are judging ourselves and our ministry by the price tag.”—Rev. Homer R. Lane, Toronto, Canada.

“It is not a struggle merely of economic theories or forms of government or military power. The issue is the true nature of man. Either man is the creature whom the Psalmist describe as ‘a little lower than the angels’ crowned with glory and honor, holding ‘dominion over the works’ of his Creator; or man is a soulless animated machine to be enslaved, used and consumed by the state for its own glorification.…”—President Eisenhower.

Digest …

Zondervan Publishing House takes over book publishing business of Sword of the Lord Foundation April 1.… Over 50% of Milwaukee TV viewers watch premiere of “Martin Luther.”

$140,000 fund raised to restore historic Calvin Auditorium in Geneva, Switzerland.… Two leading Christian schools in Seoul, Korea—Chosun University and Severence Union Medical College—merge as Yonsei University. First president, Dr. L. George Paik.

Middle East News: April 01, 1957

Massive Radio Effort

Plans for the construction in the Near East of a 100,000-watt radio transmitter to beam programs to the Arabic-speaking world have been approved by the Near East Committee of the National Council of Churches.

To be built at a cost of $250,000, the station will be supported by cooperative Protestant foreign mission boards. With the exception of the Vatican radio, which equals the new station’s planned power, this reportedly will be the largest and most powerful venture in radio by any religious group.

The radio will be as powerful as the 100,000-watt Voice of America transmitters in the area. Like these, it will be short-wave, which carries much farther than medium and long-wave signals. Most home radios in Africa and the East—405,000 were licensed last year in Egypt alone—are equipped to receive short wave.

Exact location of the transmitter has not been determined.

Radio jamming by Russia, recently intensified in the area, will be a problem, but church engineers are optimistic after studying transmitting conditions in the Middle East.

The station’s programs will be educational and cultural as well as religious.

Dr. W. Burton Martin, executive secretary of the NCC’s RAVEMCCO (Radio, Audio-Visual Education, Mass Communications Committee), said programming will call for an eight-hour day, seven-day-a-week schedule. Included will be a family breakfast program, and programs for industrial workers, farmers and homemakers.

Bible study and daily devotions will be features in the schedule, but music, drama and light entertainment will have significant roles.

“Its influence will be invaluable in bringing the Christian message to new millions, while operating in the public interest,” said Dr. Martin.

Some American observers said they were not enthusiastic about the church putting on public service programs. Others expressed hope that evangelical voices, long familiar to world audiences as bearers of the Gospel, will not he bypassed.

Apple PodcastsDown ArrowDown ArrowDown Arrowarrow_left_altLeft ArrowLeft ArrowRight ArrowRight ArrowRight Arrowarrow_up_altUp ArrowUp ArrowAvailable at Amazoncaret-downCloseCloseEmailEmailExpandExpandExternalExternalFacebookfacebook-squareGiftGiftGooglegoogleGoogle KeephamburgerInstagraminstagram-squareLinkLinklinkedin-squareListenListenListenChristianity TodayCT Creative Studio Logologo_orgMegaphoneMenuMenupausePinterestPlayPlayPocketPodcastRSSRSSSaveSaveSaveSearchSearchsearchSpotifyStitcherTelegramTable of ContentsTable of Contentstwitter-squareWhatsAppXYouTubeYouTube