GRACE
JOURNAL
A PUBLICATION OF GRACE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Winona Lake, Indiana
I
WINTER 1963
Vol. 4 | No. i!
I
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2011 with funding from
LYRASIS members and Sloan Foundation
http://www.archive.org/details/gracejournal1963413kent
GRACE JOURNAL
A publication of Grace Theological Seminary
VOLUME 4
WINTER, 1963
NUMBER 1
CONTENTS
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-
REVELATION THEORY
John C. Whitcomb, Jr. 3
THE PROBLEM OF THE EFFICACY OF OLD
TESTAMENT SACRIFICES
Hobart E. Freeman 21
THE PATRIARCHS1 KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH
John J. Davis 29
GENERAL REVIEW
Herman A. Hoyt 44
BOOK REVIEWS
47
GRACE JOURNAL is published three times each year (Winter, Spring, Fall) by Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake,
Indiana.
EDITORIAL POLICY: The editors of GRACE JOURNAL hold the historic Christian faith, and accept without reservation the
inerrancy of Scripture and the premillennial view of eschatology. A more complete expression of their theological position may
be found in the Statement of Faith of Grace Theological Seminary. The editors, however, do not necessarily endorse every
opinion that may be expressed by individual writers in the JOURNAL.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per calendar year; single copy, 75c.
ADDRESS: All subscriptions and review copies of books should be sent to GRACE JOURNAL, Box 397, Winona Lake, Indiana.
Copyright, 1963, by Grace Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL STAFF
HOMER A. KENT, JR.
Editor
JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR.
Managing Editor
HERMAN A. HOYT
General Review Editor
S. HERBERT BESS
Book Review Editor
HOBART E. FREEMAN
Manuscript Editor
JAMES L. BOYER
E. WILLIAM MALE
KENNETH G. MOELLER
Business Committee
ALVA J. McCLAIN
HOMER A. KENT, SR.
JOHN REA
Consulting Editors
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY
JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR.
Professor of Old Testament
Grace Theological Seminary
Judging from the number of recent controversies in evangelical circles concerning the full
implications of the doctrine that the Bible is divinely and verbally inspired and thus inerrant in the
autographs, there seems to be little likelihood that Christians who hold to this crucially important
teaching of Scripture are about to enter upon a period of triumphant and undisturbed peace and
acceptance in the Protestant world.
For example, it has recently been asserted that the very possibility of a verbally inerrant rev-
elation has been rendered untenable by studies in the field of linguistics.' Others are claiming
that the Bible contains historical errors which can be explained on the basis of inspired and there-
fore accurate quotations from non-inspired and erroneous sources. 2 Along with this comes the
suggestion that verbal inspiration extends only to those "basic" matters which God intended to
convey to man, and not to mere "peripheral" matters. 3 We are also being told that a true under-
standing of the nature of Biblical inspiration must be attained through an inductive study of the
actual phenomena of Scripture rather than by a deduction from Biblical proof-texts on inspiration. 4
Thus, many evangelical Christians have been led to believe that verbal inspiration is merely a
human theory about the Bible, and therefore is neither essential to true Christianity nor legitimate
as a standard and test of orthodoxy.^
The fact that such viewpoints have been publicized recently by scholars who claim to be
evangelical should be profoundly disturbing to those who accept by faith the Bible's clear testimony
to its own verbal inerrancy (cf. Prov. 30:5-6; II Tim. 3:16; II Pet. 1:19-21; John 10:34; Matt.
5:18). Nevertheless, it is not our purpose in this paper to deal with any of the above-mentioned
views, for we believe that they have already been adequately refuted by competent evangelical
theologians. Instead, it is our purpose to examine yet another theory that has gained wide ac-
ceptance among evangelical Christians and that tends to undermine the Biblical doctrine of verbal
inspiration. For lack of a better term, we have chosen to call this "The Double-Revelation
Theory." In the following pages we shall present some recent expressions of this view, expose some
of its basic fallacies, and then draw our conclusions with regard to this view in the light of the
Biblical doctrine of verbal inspiration.
This paper is an expanded revision of a presidential address given at the Seventh General Meeting
of the Midwestern Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, May 4, 1962, at Moody Bible
Institute, Chicago, Illinois.
4 GRACE JOURNAL
THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY
Briefly stated, this theory maintains that God has given to man two revelations of truth, each
of which is fully authoritative in its own realm: the revelation of God in Scripture and the re-
velation of God in nature. Although these two revelations differ greatly in their character and
scope, they cannot contradict each other, since they are given by the same self-consistent God of
truth. The theologian is the God-appointed interpreter of Scripture, and the scientist is the God-
appointed interpreter of nature, and each has specialized tools for determining the true meaning of
the particular book of revelation which he is called upon to study. Whenever there is apparent
conflict between the conclusions of the scientist and the conclusions of the theologian, especially
with regard to such problems as the origin of the universe, the solar system, the earth, animal life,
and man; the effects of the Edenic curse; and the magnitude and effects of the Noahic Deluge, the
theologian must rethink his interpretation of the Scriptures at these points in such a way as to bring
the Bible into harmony with the general consensus of scientific opinion, since the Bible is not a
textbook on science, and these problems overlap the territory in which science alone must give us
the detailed and authoritative answers.
The double-revelation theory holds that this is necessarily the case, because if an historical
and grammatical interpretation of the Biblical account of Creation, the Edenic curse, and the
Flood should lead the Bible student to adopt conclusions that are contrary to the prevailing views
of trained scientists concerning the origin and history of the earth, then he would be guilty of
making God a deceiver of mankind in these vitally important matters. But a God of truth cannot
lie. Therefore, Genesis must be interpreted in such a way as to agree with the generally-accepted
views of modern science. After all, Genesis was written primarily to give us answers to the
questions, "Who?" and "Why?" Modern science, however, must answer the important questions,
"When?" and "How?"7
BASIC FALLACIES OF THIS THEORY
I. It Underestimates the Limitations of the Scientific Method
In the first place, the double-revelation theory fails to give due recognition to the tremendous
limitations which inhibit the scientific method when applied to the study of origins. In the very
nature of the case, the scientific method (which analyzes the laws of nature in repeatable events)
is incapable of processing the miraculous and the supernatural, the once-for-all and the utterly
unique, the spiritual and the unseen. The scientific method assumes without proof the universal
validity of uniformity as a law of nature, by extrapolating present processes forever into the past
and future; and it ignores the possible anti-theistic bias of the scientist himself as he handles the
"facts" of nature in arriving at a cosmology (a theory concerning the basic structure and character
of the universe) and a cosmogony (a theory concerning the origin of the universe and its parts) . To
the extent that the double-revelation theory fails to give careful and honest recognition to these
essential limitations of the scientific method it will fail to give a true and undistorted picture of
reality as a whole, and it will fail also to point men to the true source for understanding its
mysteries.
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY 5
II . ]_t Underestimates the Failures of Uniformitarian Science
In the second place, the double-revelation theory overlooks the insuperable scientific problems
which continue to plague all uniformitarian and evolutionary theories concerning the origin of the
material universe and of living things. Many Christians are familiar with the scientific obstacles
which the theory of total organic evolution must surmount, such as the transition from non-life to
life, the debilitating and even lethal effects of the vast majority of mutations, the large and as yet
unbridged gaps between animal forms in the fossil record, and the clear evidence of global catas-
trophes, rather than gradual uniform processes, in the formation of the fossil strata. °
Not so familiar to Christians, perhaps, are the insuperable difficulties which continue to beset
cosmogonists who insist upon explaining the origin of the solar system in terms of naturalistic pro-
cesses. The famous nebular hypothesis of Immanuel Kant (1755) and Pierre Simon de Laplace (1796)
pictured a very hot, rotating disk of gas from which planets were formed when gaseous rings were
detached by centrifugal force from the main body of the Sun during the early stages of its contrac-
tion. But this theory was abandoned by the end of the 19th century when it was shown that such
gaseous rings could never condense into planets and that they could not have retained 98% of the
angular momentum of the solar system (which is true of the major planets today). But the various
encounter or planetesimal theories, which postulated the near approach of another star to our sun,
resulting in eruptions of planetary bits (Chamberlin and Moulton - 1905); or the drawing off of a
cigar-shaped filament of material that eventually broke up into a string of separate masses (Sir
James Jeans), or the actual collision of our sun with a star that resulted in the formation of planets
(Harold Jeffreys - 1929); or the collision of a star with an original companion star of the Sun,
causing a ribbon of material to be dragged out between them (R. A. Lyttleton - 1936), were all
discarded as hopelessly inadequate explanations of the solar system by the year 1940.° Beginning
in 1944, Von Weizsacker, Whipple, Spitzer, Urey, Gamow, Hoyle, and others have attempted to
avoid the difficulties of the planetesimal theories by returning to a form of nebular hypothesis,
whereby the Sun and its planets condensed out of swirling eddies of cold, dark, interstellar clouds
of gas and dust. How well this currently popular theory succeeds in explaining the solar system in
terms of physical, chemical, and mathematical principles alone may be judged by the reader for
himself after considering carefully some of the problems which continue to harass the cosmogonist.
(1) The Problem of the Condensation of the Sun and
its Planets from a Cold Nebula of Gas and Dust.
Gerald P. Kuiper, a noted American astronomer, seeks to explain the evolution of the solar
system in the following manner:
What made the gas of the future sun begin to condense was presumably a chance eddy
that brought together enough atoms in one region so that their total gravity overcame the
momentum of the individual movements and held them together in a single, collapsing
cloud. Very slowly the matter of the cloud began to fall inward on eddies where the gas
was densest. By far the largest of the eddies was the protosun. Its overwhelming gravi-
tational influence shaped the rest of the cloud into a huge, rotating disk... The lesser
eddies, rolling lazily around on one another like ballbearings, were the protoplanets. . .The
surface of the sun turned slowly red and hot, orange and hotter, yellow and incandescent.
6 GRACE JOURNAL
Its first red rays, falling on the half-begotten protoplanets, began to drive away the smoke
of matter in which they had been born and on which they were still feeding and growing.
Soon the protoplanets were no longer rolling around on one another like ball bearings but
flying as separately as bees around a newly opened flower. '^
Kuiper's theory, only briefly summarized here, is a refinement of Von Weizsacker's original dust-
cloud theory (1944) and the light-pressure theory of Whipple and Spitzer (1948). Although its
adherents claim that it avoids the major difficulties of earlier hypotheses, it falls hopelessly far
short of explaining scientifically the origin of the solar system.
In the first place, before any condensation of gas and dust could occur, the nebula would have
diffused into outer space. Kuiper himself also admits that before gravitational attraction would
become significant, the particles would have to be as big as the Moon! '' The theory assumes that
dust particles will stick together when they collide; but this does not seem to be the case in dust
storms or in any other known situation. Whipple admits that the chief difficulty is to explain how
the protoplanets maintained themselves during the early stages when the dust clouds were more
rare than the vacuum of a thermos bottle. Yet they had to hold together sufficiently to pick up
material from the rare spaces between them, and they had to be massive enough to grow and not
spiral in toward the Sun. '
In the second place, the theory of "roller bearing" eddies of gas and dust is impossible, be-
cause a regular system of vortices must remain intact during essentially the entire period of planet-
ary accretion. This is due to the fact that the planets all revolve around the Sun in the same
direction. Kuiper frankly confesses: "It is difficult to conceive that the beautiful system of
vortices could actually have been in existence long enough — ■ even for 10 or 100 years — to get
the condensation of the building material for the planets under way." Yet the theory demands
millions of years! '*
In the third place, even if we assume that this cloud somehow started to condense and that
enough condensed to form the Sun, the question arises as to "what stopped the process from contin-
uing so that the entire mass of material did not form one large body? After all, the sun makes up
99 and 6/7% of the mass of the sun and planets combined. Why did that paltry 1/7 of one per cent
not fall into the main body also? This is a serious question, and one thathas not been answered." '4
Finally, as Paul A. Zimmerman points out, other suns do not seem to be developing planetary
systems:
Weizacker himself recently admitted that the existence of so much intersteller material
in the vicinity of our sun, together with the fact that he can find no evidence whatever of
stars being formed now from that material, constitutes a paradox. He hazards a guess that
the presence of stars already formed prevents the condensation of any more of the inter-
steller gas. But this is a poor defense. Greenstein, astronomer at the Mount Wilson Ob-
servatory, is of the opinion that the known stars rotate so fast that one must conclude that
they could never have been formed by a condensation process.^
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY 7
As if to put the coup de grace on the validity of this theory of the origin of the solar system,
which he himself feels is the best available at the present time, Kuiper states: "It is not a fore-
gone conclusion. . .that the problem has a scientific solution. For instance, an enclosure in which
the air has been stirred gives, after some delay, no clue on the nature or the time of the stirring.
All memory of the event within the system has been lost." '° Kuiper's modesty at this point is in-
deed commendable, for it is not often seen in the writings of evolutionary cosmogonists. However,
a similar sentiment has been expressed by Harold C. Urey: "None of us was there at the time, and
any suggestions I may make can hardly be considered as certainly true. The most that can be done
is to outline a possible course of events which does not contradict physical laws and observed facts.
For the present we cannot deduce by rigorous mathematical methods the exact history that began
with a globule of dust." ■' Zimmerman's comment on Urey's statement is well worth pondering:
This shows clearly what cosmogonical theorizing is. It is good, clean fun for an as-
tronomer, a mathematician, a chemist, a physicist. It is an exercise in working out a log-
ical scheme of proposed events which would lead to the formation of the earth and the solar
system as we find them now. It is a game, the rules of which are observed physical and
chemical laws. But even if one wins the game by devising a perfect system that accounts
for every detail of the properties of the heavenly bodies, he still will not have proved that
things did, in fact, take place as he deduced they might have. '°
(2) The Problem of the Sun's Small Angular Momentum.
Can evolutionary theory explain the origin of the Sun? Apart from the basic question of the
origin of the atomic particles and their stupendous energy (which will be discussed later), one is
faced immediately with the vexing problem of the Sun's small angular momentum. David Layzer,
Professor of Astronomy at Harvard University, explains that the present rates of rotation of galaxies
"can be either measured or inferred from the observed shapes with fair accuracy," and, therefore,
"one can calculate how much angular momentum the material in a typical star would have had if it
had been part of a gaseous protogalaxy." Layzer continues:
This turns out to be about 10° times as much as it now possesses, which means that in
the process of contraction a typical protostar would have expended all but 1/10,000,000
of 1% of its original angular momentum. How has this been accomplished? Mass ejection
could rid a system of some of its angular momentum, but not of 99.9999999% of it. Mag-
netic braking has frequently been suggested for the same purpose, but the suggestion has
not yet been put in a definite form. At present no satisfactory solution for the difficulty is
known. '"
(3) The Problem of the Angular Momentum of the Planets.
In the recently-published Life Nature Library volume entitled, The Universe,, the enormous
problem which evolution faces at this point is candidly recognized:
One key problem that plagues the builders of model solar systems is the fact that the
sun, with over 99 per cent of all the system's matter in its possession, has a mere 2 per cent
of the system's angular momentum — the property that keeps the sun rotating and keeps the
8 GRACE JOURNAL
planets revolving around it. The lightweight planets, in consequence, contain under one
per cent of the system's matter, but a staggering 98 per cent of its angular momentum. A
theory of evolution that fails to account for this peculiar fact is ruled out before it starts,20
It was primarily this problem of the disproportion of angular momentum in the planets as com-
pared to the Sun that finally destroyed the old nebular hypothesis of Kant and Laplace, and the
various collision and near-collision theories of Chamberlin, Moulton, Jeans, Jeffreys, and Lyttle-
ton. Has the currently popular cold-nebula hypothesis succeeded where others have failed?
Gerald Kuiper has tentatively suggested the "admittedly very speculative" idea that gases between
the protoplanets and the sun became ionized during their evaporation "and in this electrical state
they acted as a bridge for the Sun's magnetic energy. In effect, they acted as elastic spokes be-
tween the Sun's whirling hub and its rims of evaporating protoplanets. "2 '
But in refutation of this idea, Professor Layzer of Harvard emphasizes that any form of nebular
hypothesis "demands the existence of some highly efficient mechanism for transferring angular mom-
entum from the central part of the nebula to the periphery. Magnetic coupling has been suggested
as the mechanism, but no one has yet shown that magnetic fields of the required kind exist and
could be expected to occur in a nebula." Furthermore, "the division of angular momentum between
Sun and planets must have been even more one-sided than it is now before the planets lost their
light gases. The classic difficulty posed by such a division is that of understanding how it could
have arisen if all the matter in the solar system had once belonged to a single nebula. "^2
(4) The Problem of Eccentric and Inclined Orbits.
Another rather serious problem for evolution is the marked deviation of smaller bodies in the
solar system from the "normal" type of orbit demanded by the theory that the system began as a
huge, rotating, flattened disk of gas and dust that condensed into a central sun and various proto-
planets. 23 Now it is true that the planets reveal three types of regularity in their revolution
around the Sun, and it is these regularities that have encouraged evolutionary explanations for the
origin of the solar system: (1) all nine planets move around the Sun in the same direction, that is,
counterclockwise when viewed from the North Star; (2) all nine planets have nearly circular
orbits; (3) the orbits of these nine planets lie in almost the same pjane., which is approximately
the plane of the Sun's equator.
However, as Professor Layzor points out, cosmogonical theorists tend to emphasize these three
regularities while "less emphasis has been laid on the departures from these regularities exhibited
by the smaller bodies of the solar system. Of the planets. Mercury (the smallest) and Pluto (the
outermost) have the most eccentric and highly inclined orbits [with inclinations of 7 degrees and 17
degrees respectively, and eccentricities of 24% and 20% respectively]. The asteroids, which are
probably planetary fragments, have still higher eccentricities and inclinations, while the orbits of
comets and meteors show no trace whatever of the three regularities. "24
An interesting illustration of the reluctance of evolutionists to face up to the true significance
of such deviations from the "normal" pattern maybe seen in the following statement by Isaac Asimov:
The general regularity of this picture naturally suggested that some single process had
created the whole system. Of course, the irregularities have always been hard to ex-
plain away, but there are only a few of them and they may be accounted for as results of
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE -REVELATION THEORY 9
accidents. . .The fact that Pluto's orbit is tilted well out of the general plane and is some-
what elongated may be explainable on the theory that Pluto was originally a satellite of
Neptune and was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other acci-
dent. 25
(5) The Problem of the Retrograde Rotation of Uranus.
It is unfortunate for the theory of evolution that the so-called "regularities" of the solar system
total no more than three; for of the six planets whose rotations have been well determined, five
rotate in the same sense of direction as that of their orbital motion around the Sun, while one, Ur-
anus, rotates in the opposite direction! To be more specific, the axes of the planets with direct
(rather than retrograde) rotation deviate from the perpendicular by between 3 degrees and 29 de-
grees (the earth's axis is tilted 23 1/2 degrees), but the axis of Uranus deviates by 98 degrees,
which is eight degrees backwards from the direction of its orbit around the Sun! At the same time,
the orbit of Uranus inclines less than that of any other planet. Professor Layzer admits that "it is
an open question whether this state of affairs is consistent" with current theories of the origin of the
solar system. 26 Similarly, W. M. Smart, Professor of Astronomy at the University of Glasgow,
concludes: "It must be confessed that it is difficult to account for the exceptional circumstances
relating to Uranus if we regard, as indeed we do, the uniformities of orbital and rotational motion
in general as providing an incontrovertible argument in favour of the common origin of the plane-
tary system. "27
(6) The Problem of Retrograde Satellites.
Six of the nine planets have moons or satellites of their own — the earth having one, Mars two,
Jupiter twelve, Saturn nine, Uranus five, and Neptune two, for a total of thirty-one. As astron-
omers began to study these planetary satellites, they were astonished to discover that not all of them
orbit their planets in the same direction! That is, some of them have retrograde orbits in relation
to the rotational direction of their mother planets. This is true of the outer four of Jupiter's twelve
satellites; of Phoebe, the outermost of Saturn's nine; of the five moons of Uranus, which move in
the equatorial plane of a planet that is tilted 98 degrees from the plane of its own orbit; and of
Triton, the inner of Neptune's two satellites, which has nearly twice the mass of our moon (its di-
ameter being 3,000 miles) and which revolves every six days in a nearly circular orbit only 220,000
miles from its mother planet (20,000 miles closer than the Moon to the earth) .
Isaac Asimov, as well as many other evolutionary cosmogonists, believesthat Triton, like Pluto,
" was thrown away from that planet by some cosmic collision or other accident," and that later on
Neptune re-captured its lost moon into a retrograde orbit by "a similar accident."^" But how many
such "accidents" may one be permitted to invoke to prop up a theory already tottering under the
weight of its own unproved assumptions? Asimov further states that retrograde satellites are "minor
exceptions" to the general rule of satellite orbits. But eleven out of thirty-one moons having retro-
grade orbits can hardly be brushed aside as "minor exceptions"! After attempting to explain poss-
ible ways in which Jupiter might have captured its retrograde satellites, Professor W. M. Smart
concludes: "The mathematical problem is obviously one of the utmost difficulty and complexity,
and it is hardly surprising that the suggestion of satellite capture in the way roughly indicated as it
affects Jupiter has not been lifted out of the trough of speculation into the higher levels of mathe-
matical demonstration." 29 Professor Layzer of Harvard makes it clear that "the fragments of a
rotating disk must all revolve in the same sense. Thus the nebular hypothesis must attribute a sep-
10 GRACE JOURNAL
arate origin to the retrograde satellites. Usually they are believed to have been captured, a view
which was easier to accept in the days when retrograde orbits were exceedingly rare than it is now,
when no less than twelve are known" ^u
(7) The Problem of the Distribution of Angular Momentum in Satellite Systems.
It was pointed out earlier that the nine planets carry 98% of the angular momentum of the solar
system. Even if this could be explained by evolutionary theory — and it cannot! — the problem
of the distribution of angular momentum in satellite systems still remains. Professor Layzer explains
the problem as follows:
Except in the Earth-Moon system (which is exceptional in other respects as well), the
primary carries the bulk of the angular momentum, instead of the satellites^ This happens
partly because the satellite systems are more compact than the primary system; the distances
of the satellites from their primaries, measured in units of the radius of the primary, are
systematically smaller than the distances of the planets from the Sun, measured in units of
the solar radius. But in addition, the planets rotate more rapidly, for their densities, than
the Sun, as is evident from their greater degree of flattening. This circumstance aggra-
vates the theoretical difficulty presented by the slow rotation of the Sun,, for if the Sun has
somehow managed to get rid of the angular momentum it would be expected to have, ac-
cording to the nebular hypothesis, why have the planets not done likewise?^'
(8) The Problem of the Moon.
Though the Moon is not the largest planetary satellite in the solar system, it is much the largest
in proportion to the size of its mother planet, with a diameter that is more than a quarter the size
of the earth's and more than two-thirds the size of Mercury's. For this reason, as Arthur Beiser
points out, "modern thought on the formation of the solar system regards the moon as a legitimate
planet, which either took shape as a near twin from the same cosmic raw material that the earth
began with or, forming elsewhere in the same general zone, was captured later by the earth to
make up the present double system."^ But Beiser recognizes that this view of the Moon's origin
faces very serious difficulties, for he goes on to state: "From observations that yield the moon's
dimensions and its mass, we know that the moon has an average density a full third less than the
density of the earth. If both bodies were formed of much the same stuff, what accounts for this
discrepancy? "33 No answer is given to this question.
At the present time, astronomers have no generally accepted theory concerning the origin of
the Moon. The British astronomer, George Darwin (son of Charles), discovered about 1890 that
the Moon is receding from the earth at the rate of five inches a year. By means of a typically uni-
formitarian extrapolation, he concluded that about four billion years ago the Moon was pulled out
of the earth, leaving the Pacific Basin as the scar which marks the point of its departure, and that
it has been receding ever since! Many scientists still accept this view, including George Gamow,J4
in spite of the fact that another British astronomer, Harold Jeffreys, proved in 1931 that such a
separation of the Moon from the earth would have been physically impossible. "Since then," writes
Harold C. Urey, "most astronomers have agreed with him. "35 What, then, does the gradual re-
cession of the Moon prove concerning its origin? Nothing whatever! This point should be care-
fully pondered by those who insist that present processes are an infallible key to the past.
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE -REVELATION THEORY U
(9) The Problem of Heavier Elements in the Smaller Planets.
Professor Fred Hoyle, renowned cosmologist of Cambridge University, points to yet another
problem for the nebular hypothesis:
Apart from hydrogen and helium, all other elements are extremely rare, all over the
universe. In the sun they amount to only about 1% of the total mass. Contrast this with
the earth and the other planets where hydrogen and helium make only about the same con-
tribution as highly complex atoms like iron, calcium, silicon, magnesium, and aluminum.
The contrast brings out two important points. First, we see that material torn from the sun
would not be at all suitable for the formation of the planets as we know them. Its compos-
ition would be hopelessly wrong. And our second point in this contrast is that it is the sun
that is normal and the earth that is the freak. The intersteller gas and most of the stars are
composed of material like the sun, not like the earth. You must understand that, cos-
mically speaking, the room you are now sitting in is made of the wrong stuff. You your-
self are a rarity. You are a cosmic collector's piece. 3°
Very ingenious and complicated theories have had to be devised to explain the high proportion
of heavy elements in the earth and the other small planets. It will be recalled from an earlier
section of the paper that Kuiper invoked the concept of a dust-cloud composed of almost exactly
the same proportion of elements now found in the solar system, which gradually condensed into the
Sun and its planets, with the pressure of sunlight dispersing the lighter gases (hydrogen and helium
primarily) from the small, inner planets (Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars). Difficult as it is to
imagine such a process taking place, it is nothing compared to the difficulty of imagining how such
a dust-cloud originated in the first place! George Gamow believes that our present universe
started from an exceedingly dense core of protons and neutrons which exploded in a "big bang"
about five billion years ago. By a rapid succession of neutron captures and electron decays, all
the elements were built up in the first few minutes, and the fleeing matter thereafter formed stars,
planets, and galaxies. Gamow worked out his theory with impressive mathematical detail, and
most cosmogonists today accept the basic outline of this hypothesis. '
Nevertheless, Gamow's "big bang" theory of the origin of the elements faces some insuperable
difficulties. The first of these, as William A. Fowler of the California Institute of Technology
frankly admits, is beyond any hope of scientific solution: "How the protons and neutrons them-
selves were created is a question outside the province of this article: only men of strong convict-
ions, religious or scientific, have the courage to deal with the problem of the creation."^® Beyond
this, however, are yet other "difficulties to which Gamow's collaborators Ralph A. Alpher and
Robert C. Herman have themselves called attention."
The most serious is the fact that in the sequence of atomic weights numbers 5 and 8 are
vacant. That is, there is no stable atom of mass 5 or of mass 8... The question then is:
How can the build-up of elements by neutron capture get by these gaps? The process
could not go beyond helium 4, and even if it spanned this gap it would be stopped again at
mass 8. In short, if neutron capture were the only process by which elements could be
built, starting with hydrogen, the build-up would get no farther than helium. This basic
objection to Gamow's theory is a great disappointment, in view of the promise and philo-
12 GRACE JOURNAL
sophical attractiveness of the idea. The other major current hypothesis is less simple and
less elegant; it complicates the picture by invoking other processes, in addition to neutron
capture, to account for the build-up of the elements. But it seems to surmount the diffi-
culties encountered by the Gamow hypothesis. The theory argues that the elements were
built not in a primordial explosion but in the hot interior of stars. ^°
Fowler devotes the remainder of his article to a highly speculative discussion of the numerous
complicated processes that must be imagined to explain the evolution of heavier elements. Starting
with a universe consisting of a cold, dilute and turbulent gas of hydrogen atoms, the theory assumes
that part of the gas condensed into stars which became hot enough to produce some carbon 12 out
of rare fusions of beryllium 8 with helium 4. Other elements were formed as the temperature con-
tinued to rise, until finally the iron group (around atomic weight 56) appeared. Having burned up
all their internal fuel, these primeval stars exploded and flung "a considerable amount of iron,"
together with lighter elements, into intersteller space. Out of this cold nebula of gas and dust
"second generation" stars condensed, produced still heavier elements, exploded again into inter-
steller space, and finally condensed into the solar system! "Of course this scheme is still highly
tentative," admits Fowler. "It is disconcerting that so many different processes have to be invoked;
it would be much more satisfactory to see a single process that could build up all the elements.
The picture may, however, become simpler as more research is done. "40
Unfortunately for the theory of evolution, the picture is not becoming "simpler as more research
is done." Instead, the complexity of the physical universe multiplies as each new discovery is
made. It might not be entirely inappropriate to suggest that the easiest way out of the cosmogonical
dilemma, as far as modern science is concerned, would be to suppose that all the elements came
into existence in the form of gas and dust clouds — out of nowhere! Perhaps some readers will be
astonished to learn that this is actually the "explanation" now being advocated for the origin of all
hydrogen atoms in the universe, by Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi, and Thomas Gold of Cambridge
University, William H. McCrea of the University of London, and other "steady-state" cosmologists
who strongly oppose Gamow's "big-bang" theory of the origin of the universe. Professor Hoyle
explains:
I find myself forced to assume that the nature of the Universe requires continuous cre-
ation — the perpetual bringing into being of new background material. . .The most obvious
question to ask about continuous creation is this: Where does the created material come
from? Jl does not come from anywhere. Material appears — it ii created. At one time,
the various atoms composing the material do not exist, and at a later time they do. This
may seem a very strange idea, and I agree that it is, but in science it does not matter how
strange an idea may seem so long as it works. . .Hydrogen is being steadily converted into
helium throughout the universe, and this conversion is a one-way process — that is to say,
hydrogen cannot be produced in any appreciable quantity through the breakdown of other
elements. How comes it then that the universe consists almost entirely of hydrogen? If
matter were infinitely old, this would be quite impossible. So we see that the universe
being what it is, the creation issue simply cannot be dodged. And I think that of all the
various possibilities that have been suggested, continuous creation is easily the most satis-
factory. 41
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY 13
But if hydrogen atoms continue to pop out of nowhere, why not all the other elements too? In
other words, if modern science cannot explain the origin of the basic building blocks of the uni-
verse (whether protons, neutrons, or hydrogen atoms), why should it bother to explain the origin of
the more complex elements? If modern science cannot explain the origin of the earth, the Moon,
and the Sun, why should it bother to explain the origin of the universe beyond? The fact of the
matter is that science steps out of its proper domain when it dogmatizes, or even speculates, con-
cerning ultimate origins. God has seen to it that mere human logic and searching will never suc-
ceed in this area, for it is only through special revelation that God has partially unveiled the
mysteries of creation "in the beginning." Not by cosmogonical speculation, then, but "by faith we
understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not
been made out of things which appear" (Heb. 11:3).
But have not the currently popular cosmological and cosmogonical theories been solidly estab-
lished upon extremely intricate and impressive mathematical foundations? Yes, but equally brill-
iant mathematicians are "demonstrating" mutually exclusive cosmologies! Bernard Jaffe describes
the present state of affairs in cosmology as follows:
The theoretician supplements Einstein's principles by functions of his own, adding a
new symbol here, removing another there, changing coefficients or exponents, rearranging
the formulas when new difficulties appear or new interpretations occur to him. Every line
represents the creation of a new universe; every sheet of paper that is crumpled and tossed
into the wastepaper basket signifies a universe destroyed. In the morning he constructs
and in the evening he tears down, god and demon at once. 42
One prominent scientist, in reviewing the intricately developed cosmogonical theory of another
scientist, warned that "only the alert reader will be aware that, concealed behind the apparently
conservative mathematics, there is a precarious inverted pyramid of speculation after speculation,
interlarded with slippery assumptions." 4v* What may the Christian conclude from all of this? In
the words of Paul A. Zimmerman,
No theory is better or stronger than its assumptions. Without good grounds for accept-
ing the assumptions, the whole structure hangs suspended in the sky by the thread of imag-
ination.. .From all this a Christian pastor may draw the conclusion that he may with truth
tell his people that current materialistic propaganda regarding cosmological theories is just
that — propaganda, unsupported by fact! The Biblical account of creation by Almighty
God has not been disproved by science. It remains today, even from the viewpoint of
reason, I believe, the most logical, believable account of the beginning of the earth and
the rest of the universe. ^4
III. It Underestimates God's Special Revelation in Scripture
In the light of the utter failure of uniformitarian evolution to explain the origin of the elements,
the stars, and the planets, it is very disappointing to find leading evangelical exponents of the
double-revelation theory appealing to Gamow's "big-bang" hypothesis of an expanding universe as
support for the Biblical doctrine of creation! In the first of a series of articles on "The Story of
14 GRACE JOURNAL
Creation," Christian Life magazine invited J. Laurence Kulp, Karl Turekian, and Donald R. Carr
of Columbia University's Lamont Geological Observatory, and Russell Mixter and Howard Claasen
of Wheaton College to discuss "The Origin of the Universe." These writers concluded:
A simple calculation shows that about five billion years ago all matter was in one spot.
An "explosion" occurred at that time and the fragments have been flying apart since to
give us an expanding universe. . .How did the creative act take place? An increasing
number of evangelical Christian scientists and theologians can now be said to take the fol-
lowing position. . .All the elements of the universe must have been created within a half
hour. Within less than 400 million years, the gas composed of 90 per cent hydrogen had
drifted apart to a great extent and the temperature had dropped down to that of a comfort-
ably warm room. There were none of the sparkling stars of today at that time — only a
gigantic dark ball of gas at low pressure... Some 500 million years after the universe was
started (about 1/10 of universe history) the earth came into being. 45
The effort of these evangelical scientists to harmonize the "big bang" theory with the Biblical
account of creation becomes somewhat ludicrous when they invoke Hebrews 11:3 ("through faith we
understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not
made of things which do appear") to support the idea that the visible universe has developed from
"invisible" atomic particles! Bernard Ramm effectively disposes of this interpretation, though in
many other respects he accepts the double-revelation theory:
If this is the correct interpretation it means that all scientists who believe in the atomic
theory have the faith of Hebrews 1J! Belief in protons, photons, positrons and electrons is
put on the same level as faith in God's power and promises. It is absurd to assert that an
atheist's faith in atomic theory is the same faith as that of Hebrews 11. . .Ex nihilo creation
is distinctly Biblical and foreign to Greek thinking, and it is ex nihilo creation which we
perceive by faith. To assert then that "the things which do not appear" refers to invisible
atoms, and not the word of God (the divine agency of creation) h to directly contradict
the teaching of this verse. It would make the verse mean: God created the world from
previously existing invisible atoms. But that h precisely what the passage seeks to deny for
it seeks to tell us that the visible universe was brought into existence ex nihilo by a spirit-
ual God and a spiritual power, namely, the word of God.^°
It is significant that just eighteen months after this article appeared in Christian Life, Gamow
himself frankly admitted that the "big-bang" theory could not explain the origin of most of the
elements!
We know that hydrogen and helium do in fact make up about 99 percent of the matter
of the universe. This leaves us with the problem of building the heavier elements. I hold
to the opinion that some of them were built by capture of neutrons. However, since the
absence of any stable nucleus of atomic weight 5 makes it improbable that the heavier ele-
ments could have been produced in the first half hour in the abundances now observed, J.
would agree that the lion's share of the heavy elements may well have been formed later in
the hot interior of stars. 47
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY 15
This is not an isolated instance. Time and time again, Christians have been pressured into
adopting some popular scientific theory only to discover, to their sorrow and embarrassment, that
they had succeeded in "harmonizing" Scripture to a scientific concept that was proved to be erron-
eous after all. As someone has well said, the person who becomes wedded to the scientific cos-
mology of one generation will find himself widowed in the next. Man's understanding of the uni-
verse continues to change as he learns more and more of its intricate and marvellous structure; but
God's Word never changes, for it is the direct product of an infinite and unchanging God.
It is not surprising that Christians who prefer to accept the Biblical doctrine of origins find
themselves under continual pressure, not only from secular scientists, but also from evangelical
scientists who adhere tenaciously to the double-revelation theory. For example, Dr. J. Laurence
Kulp, one of the contributors to the Christian Life article cited above, feels that it is the height of
presumption for Christians to call into question a theory of the origin of the universe that the major-
ity of modern scientists accept:
It may be theologically undesirable for those who hold a particular doctrine of creation
to accept the "hot hydrogen hypothesis" of the origin of the universe, but certainly it is
not for a theologian to reject the hypothesis that is held in one form or another by practi-
cally all scientists in cosmology on scientific grounds. . .Apparently we are to let the the-
ologians pontificate all knowledge of the physical world and dare not investigate any of it.
The first stage of all scientific investigation is guessing (forming hypotheses) prior to testing.
Why should the first stage of the created universe be any less subject to study than any
other part of history? How the acceptance of a particular theory of the first stage of the
universe involves one in total evolution is not understandable. ^°
Even more serious than this statement, as far as the Biblical doctrine of creation is concerned,
is Dr. Kulp's insistence that any other view than the uniformitarian view of origins would make
God a deceiver of mankind!
Christians should believe in a generally uniform universe and keep themselves informed
as to the best factual information about their universe. Such a concept does not rule out
miracles nor make them deists. Since the God of the Christian is a God of truth, He would
not willfully deceive any more than willfully lie. Therefore, a single probable interpret-
ation of the physical-chemical data of the universe remains which shows it to have had a
history billions of years long. If we accepted the idea that God deceived man about the
origin and development of the universe, how can we believe in Him for any other truth . 49
What is the full significance of this statement? In the first place, Dr. Kulp seems to be saying
that the evidences in support of a uniformitarian interpretation of the origin and development of
the universe are so consistent, powerful, and undeniable, that God Himself would be a deceiver if
this view turned out to be wrong after all! We would suggest that the reader check again the nine
problems listed earlier in this paper if he is tempted to believe that there is "a single probable in-
terpretation of the physical -chemical data of the universe." A survey of the history of science
reveals thousands of instances where scientists throughout the entire western world have held com-
pletely erroneous ideas concerning the laws and the structure of the material universe. Until the
beginning of the 17th century, practically all astronomers in the Christian world believed that the
16 GRACE JOURNAL
Sun revolved around the earth — and taught the Church to believe this too! Until the middle of
the 19th century, scientists believed in the spontaneous generation of life. And not until the 20th
century was the strongly-held concept of the indestructibility of matter finally exploded. Are we
justified in blaming God for these erroneous views (ield by aJJ leading scientists for centuries? Is
God a deceiver because man is not omniscient and infallible in his insights concerning the natural
world around him?
A second, and even more serious, implication of Dr. Kulp's statement is that God has nowhere
revealed to mankind the true interpretation of how the universe began. But what about the Book of
Genesis? Does not this book shed some light on the question? It is exactly at this point that the
true character of the double-revelation theory is manifested. Basic to this theory is a serious
underestimation of the significance of Scripture in the modern cosmological and cosmogonical de-
bate. Kulp states:
Some theologians assume that the results of science in space can be accepted but those
in time rejected. This occurs because of their paucity of knowledge about science. Mat-
ter, energy, space and time are indissolubly related. When we wish to learn in some de-
tail what was or is in the material universe, we cannot get this information from the
Scriptures. They are simply not a textbook on the material world. They were not intended
to be. References to natural phenomena are brief, general, and non-technical. 50
To be sure, there is some truth to the oft-repeated cliche that the Bible is not a textbook on
science. But it is also true that the Scriptures are inerrant and authoritative wherever they do
speak on matters that overlap the so-called domains of the scientist and the historian, and such
occasions are neither rare nor obscure. For example, there is a remarkable amount of clear Biblical
evidence to show that Adam and Eve received their bodies by supernatural, direct creation (rather
than by an evolutionary process); that before the Edenic curse there was no death, disease, or
violence anywhere in the earth; that the immediate descendants of Adam and Eve were not illiterate
savages; that the human race has not been in existence for scores or hundreds of thousands of years;
that the Noahic Deluge was geographically universal; and that the present distribution of the hu-
man race traces back to the Tower of Babel and God's judgment upon it.^1
Furthermore, it is the writer's conviction that the Scriptures clearly teach that the heavens,
the earth, the sea, and the various kinds of plants and animals were brought into existence as
"mature" and functioning entities by the direct and supernatural power of God.^2 Some have
argued that God may have chosen to tell the story of creation in terms of direct creation rather
than in terms of evolution, because early man could not have understood an evolutionary concept.
But this is simply not true. The ancient Greeks believed in various evolutionary ideas of the origin
of life, and if evolution were true, God could very easily have directed Moses to write the first
two chapters of Genesis in such a way as to convey this idea accurately. 53 \\ ;s no\f then, a
question of whether God has deceived scientists concerning the matter of origins if Genesis should
turn out to be true. The real question is whether God has deceived those who have taken the Book
of Genesis seriously if the modern uniformitarian and evolutionary view of origins should turn out
to be true.
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE-REVELATION THEORY 17
CONCLUSION
The time has come when evangelical Christians must strongly challenge the popular notion that
modern science provides an independent and equally authoritative source of information with the
Bible concerning such doctrines as the original creation, the Edenic curse, and the Noahic Flood,
and that science alone is competent to tell us when and how such things occurred (or even whether
they occurred!), while the Bible merely informs us "in non-technical language" as to who brought
these things about and why. The truth of the matter is that the Word of God not only provides us
with the only reliable source of information as to the when and how of these great supernatural
events (to say nothing of the who and why in each case), but also tells us why the unaided human
intellect is utterly incompetent to arrive at the correct answers in such matters (cf. Rom. 1:18-23;
3:11; I Cor. 1:19-29; 2:14; Heb. 11:1-6; II Pet. 3: 3-5). Our Lord's condemnation of the sceptical
Sadducees of His day adequately expresses the basic problem facing all modern uniformitarian cos-
mogonists: "Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matt. 22:29).
We are far from denying, of course, that God has given to men a revelation of Himself in the
material universe, for the Bible definitely teaches this in Psalm 19:1 ("the heavens declare the
glory of God; and the firmament showeth his handiwork") and in Romans 1:20 ("for the invisible
things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things
that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity"). Furthermore, God commanded Adam to
"subdue" the earth (Gen. 1:28), and we may presume that this command finds partial expression in
the marvellous inventions and discoveries which God has permitted to His creatures.
But there are a great number of supremely important truths that the material universe can never
reveal to the searching eye of man, even if he could bring an unfallen mind and a pure heart to the
investigation of its wonders. It is for this reason that God, in His infinite grace and love, has
given to us in the Bible the supreme and only authoritative revelation concerning the Persons of the
Trinity, the original creation, the nature of man, the Fall and Edenic curse, the Tower of Babel,
the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants, the miracles of Moses, Elijah, and other prophets, the in-
carnation, atoning death, and bodily resurrection of Christ, the nature and purpose of the Church,
the unseen world of spirit beings (including Satan), the Second Coming of Christ, the future judg-
ments, heaven and hell, and many other vitally important truths that are completely outside the
scope of scientific investigation. In other words, cosmogony, cosmology, and metaphysics, in the
ultimate sense of these terms (and no other sense is truly valid) are impossible apart from God's
special revelation in Scripture! The true scientist, therefore, no less than the true theologian,
must confess with David: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path... in thy light
shall we see light" (Psa. 119:105; 36:9).
In view of all this, the Christian may have perfect confidence that science can make no ulti-
mately fruitful discoveries that are not in perfect accord with the clear and obvious teachings of
God's Word, Some, indeed, will consider this to be an unwarranted restriction on their intellectual
freedom, and a stumbling block in their pathway as they seek to "follow truth wherever it may
lead." But exactly the opposite results will be experienced by those who allow the Scriptures to t •
their guide in such matters, for the omniscient and truthful Saviour has promised us: "If ye continue.
in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; and ye shall know the truth f and the truth shall make
you free" (John 8: 32) „
18 GRACE JOURNAL
DOCUMENTATION
1. Richard K. Curtis, "Language and Theology," Gordon Review (Sept., 1955; Dec, 1956;
Feb., 1957).
2. Edward J. Cornell, The Case For Orthodox Theology (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press,
1959), p. Ill; Everett F. Harrison, "The Phenomena of Scripture," chap. 15 in Revelation and
the Bible, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958), p. 249.
3. John H. Kromminga, "How Shall We Understand Infallibility?" Acts of Synod, 1959, of the
Christian Reformed Church, pp. 570 ff; George Stob, "Infallibility," a lecture reported by
Joseph Hill in Torch and Trumpet (Jan., 1960), p. 6.
4. Loc. cit.
5. Bernard Ramm, in a review of J. I. Packer's book, "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God, in
Eternity (March, 1959), p. 40; and Billy Graham, in a letter to the editor, Eternity (Nov.,
1958), pp. 18-19.
6. For a refutation of the "linguistics theory," see Roger Nicole's articles in Gordon Review, Dec,
1955, and May, 1957. On the "non-inspired sources theory," see Joseph A. Hill, "The Bible
and Non-Inspired Sources," and J. Barton Payne, "Hermeneutics as a Cloak for the Denial of
Scriptures," Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, Fall, 1960, pp. 78-81, 97-98; James
O. Buswell, Jr., and R. Laird Harris, "Review of The Case for Orthodox Theology," The Bible
Presbyterian Reporter (Dec, 1960, pp. 17-18); and Zane C. Hodges, "Conflicts in the Biblical
Account of the Ammonite-Syrian War," Bibliotheca Sacra (July, 1962, pp. 238 ff.). On the
"peripheral matters theory," see Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids Wm. B.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1957), pp. 256, 269; and "Report No. 24: Infallibility and Inspiration in the
Light of Scripture and the Creeds," Agenda, 1961, of the Christian Reformed Church, pp. 1 19-194.
In refutation of the views that the nature of Biblical inspiration must be determined by an induc-
tive study of the phenomena of Scripture and that verbal inspiration is merely a human theory,
see Theodore Engelder, Scripture Cannot Be Broken (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. Co., 1944);
Stonehouse and Wool ley (eds.), The Infallible Word (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1946); John F. Walvoord (ed.), Inspiration and Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1957; and chapters 7 and 8 (by Alan M. Stibbs and Pierre Marcel) in Revelation and
the Bible, edited by Carl F. H. Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958).
7. Recent expressions of the double-revelation theory may be found in the following articles and
books: Richard H. Bube, "God's Revelations in True Science and in the Scriptures," The Col-
legiate Challenge (Dec, 1961, p. 9); Wilbur L. Bullock, "Evolution Versus Creation — In
Retrospect and Prospect," Gordon Review (Summer, 1959, p. 79); John De Vries and Donald C.
Boardman, Essentials of Physical Science (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1958),
p. 304; Walter R. Hearn and Richard A. Hendry, "The Origin of Life," in Evolution and ChrisJ-
ian Thought Today, edited by Russell L. Mixter (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,
1959), pp. 67-70; Ulric Jelinek, "A Scientist Contemplates the Universe and Its Creator," The
Collegiate Challenge (Oct., 1961, p. 14); Edward L. Kessel, "Let's Look at Facts, Without
Bent or Bias," in The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe, edited by John C. Monsma
(No Y„: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1958), p. 52; J. Laurence Kulp, "The Christian Conceptof Uni-
formity in the Universe," His (May, 1952), pp. 15-24; Arthur W. Kuschke, Jr., in a review of
John C. Whitcomb, Jr. and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood, in The Westminster Theolog-
ical Journal (May, 1962), pp. 22 1-223; Jan Lever, Creation and Evolution (Grand Rapids: K re-
gel's, 1958, p. 21; Russell L. Mixter, "Man in Creation," Christian Life (Oct. 1961, p. 25);
BIBLICAL INERRANCY AND THE DOUBLE -REVELATION THEORY 19
Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1954), p. 104; N. H. Ridderbos, Is There A Conflict Between Genesis 1 and Natural
Science? (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1957), p. 46; George K. Schweitzer,
"The Origin of the Universe," in Evolution and Christian Thought Today, edited by Russell L.
Mixter (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1959), pp. 34, 35, 48; Aldert van derZiel,
The Natural Sciences and the Christian Message (Minneapolis: T„ S. Denison & Co., 1960),
p. 218.
8. See JohnW. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1955);
Paul A. Zimmerman (ed.), Darwin, Evolution, and Creation (St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House,
1959); and John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Nutley, N. J.:
Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1962). Among biologists who have given up evolution be-
cause itfails to give adequate explanations for the phenomena are N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthe-
tische Artbilduna (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWE Gleerup, 1953), an 1 130-page, two-volume work
in German, with a 100-page English summarization; W. R. Thompson, Introduction to Charles
Darwin: The Origin of Species, Everyman's Library *81 1 (London: J. M. Dent & Sons Ltd.; and
N . Y . E . P . Dutton & Co . Inc., 1 958) , pp . vi i - xxv; andG.A. Kerkut, Implications of
Evolution (N. Y.: Pergamon Press, 1960) .
9. For a brief and helpful analysis of each major theory of the origin of the solar system, see W. M.
Smart, The Origin of the Earth (rev, edit.; Baltimore: Penguin Books Inc., 1959), pp. 179-207.
10. David Bergamini, Life Nature Library: The Universe (N. Y.: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp.
92-93.
1 1 . Gerald P. Kuiper, in Astrophysics, A, Topical Symposium, edited by J . A. Hynek ( N . Y. :
McGraw-Hill, 1951), quoted by Paul A. Zimmerman, "Some Observations on Current Cosmolog-
ical Theories," Concordia Theological Monthly (July, 1953), p. 449.
12. Fred L. Whipple, Scientific American (May, 1948), p. 35. Cited by Zimmerman, loc. cit. ,
p. 502.
13. Kuiper, ojd. cit., cited by Zimmerman, loc. cit. , p. 499.
14. Zimmerman, loc. cit., p. 504.
15. Ibid., p. 500.
16. Bergamini, op_. cit., p. 92.
17. Harold C. Urey, "The Origin of the Earth," Scientific American (Oct., 1952), p. 56.
18. Zimmerman, Joe. ciK, p. 504.
19. David Layzer, "Cosmogony ," McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology (N. Y.:
McGraw-Hill Book Co., I960), III, 506.
20. Bergamini, op_. cit ° / P» 93.
21. [bid., pp. 93-94.
22. Layzer, op_. cU., p. 508. Smart, op_. cjt., p. 204, would agree with Layzer.
23. Bergamini, op. cit. , p. 92.
24. Layzer, loc. cit.
25. Isaac Asimov, The Intelligent Man's Guide to Science (N. Y.: Basic Books, Inc., 1960), I, 78.
26. Layzer, loc. cit.
27. Smart, op. cit., pp. 88-89.
28. Asimov, loc. cit. Cf. also, W. M. Smart, op_. cit., pp. 92-93.
29. Smart, op_. cit., p« 91.
30. Layzer, loc. cit.
31. Ibid. , underlining ours.
20 GRACE JOURNAL
32. Arthur Beiser, Life Nature Library: The Earth (N. Y.: Time Inc., 1962), 14.
33. ibid., p. 15.
34. George Gamow, Matter, Earth, and Sky (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1958),
p. 454.
35. Harold C. Urey, "The Origin of the Earth," Scientific American (October, 1952), p. 55.
36. Fred Hoyle, Harper's Magazine (April, 1951), p. 64. Quoted in Zimmerman, loc. cit. , p. 55^
37. George Gamow, "The Evolutionary Universe," Scientific American (Sept., 1956), pp. 136 ff.
38. William A. Fowler, "The Origin of the Elements," Scientific American (Sept., 1956), p. 85 .
39. Loc. dt., pp. 87-88.
40. Loc. cit. r p. 91. Cf. Gamow, Matter, Earth, and Sky, pp. 555-58. Gamow had earlier de-
nounced this view as comparable to "the request of an inexperienced housewife who wanted
three electric ovens for cooking a dinner: one for the turkey, one for the potatoes, and one for
the pie. Such an assumption of heterogeneous cooking conditions, adjusted to give the correct
amounts of light, medium-weight, and heavy elements would completely destroy the simple
picture of atom-making by introducing a complicated array of specially designed 'cooking fac-
ilities."1 The Creation of the Universe (Mentor Books. N. Y.: The New American Library,
1960; written in 1952), pp. 56-57.
41. Fred Hoyle, Harper's Magazine (Feb., 1951), p. 68. Underlining is ours. Quoted by Zimmer-
man, joe. cit., pp. 510-11.
42. Quoted by Rudolph Thiel, And There Was Light (N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 390.
43. Kirtley Mather of Harvard University, in a review of Fred Hoyle, The Nature of the Universe,
in American Scientist (July, 1951), p. 481. Quoted by Zimmerman, loc. cit., p. 510.
44. Zimmerman, loc. cit. , pp. 512-13.
45. Christian Life (March, 1955), pp. 16-17.
46. Bernard Ramm, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Pub. Co., 1954), p. 128. The Christian Life article (p. 16) refers to the original creative act
as "spontaneous" but appeals to Gamow's theory to explain it. This is quite contradictory.
47. George Gamow, "The Evolutionary Universe," Scientific American (Sept., 1956), p. 154.
Underlining is ours.
48. J. Laurence Kulp, "The Christian Conceptof Uniformity in the Universe," His Magazine, (May,
1952), p. 24. How far Kulp has travelled on the road to total uniformitarianism maybe judged
by another statement in this article: "Miracles should not be described as acts whereby God
breaks His laws but rather as acts whereby He superimposes higher laws to effect His purposes.
Theyare 'higher' only in the sense that man has not been permitted to discover them yet. Thus
miracles occur from definite causes and the effect should be reproducible" (p. 16 -underlining
ours) .
49. Loc. cit. , p. 24. Underlining is ours.
50. Loc. cit. , p. 16.
51. See. J. C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Nutley, N.J.: Presby-
terian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1962), pp. 454-89.
52 o Cf. Exodus 20:11. See John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (St. Louis: Concordia
Pub. House, 1955), pp. 86-116; Raymond F. Surburg, "In the Beginning God Created," Chap-
ter 2 in Darwin, Evolution, and Creation, edited by Paul A. Zimmerman (St. Louis: Concordia
Pub. House, 1959), pp. 37-80; and Whitcomb and Morris, op_. cit., pp. 232-39, 344.
53. Cf. Wilbert H. Rusch, "Darwinism, Science, and the Bible," Chapter 1 in Darwin, Evolution,
and Creation, pp. 5-12.
THE PROBLEM OF THE EFFICACY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES
HOBART E. FREEMAN
Instructor in Old Testament
Grace Theological Seminary
It was at one time rather popular among critical scholars to emphasize a strong distinction be-
tween the Levitical and prophetic elements in the Old Testament, and either condemning outright
the former, or minimizing its spiritual importance. Historically the Levitical element was as es-
sential to the religious life and development of Israel as the prophetic. It formed the framework,
as it were, without which the continuity of the religious life of the Jewish nation would have been
impossible.
No valid distinction can be made between the Levitical (or ceremonial) and prophetic (or
moral) elements of the Old Testament, since each was divinely instituted to serve its proper pur-
pose. Such a separation is unbiblical and foreign to Old Testament thought. Throughout Israel's
history the moral was taught through the ceremonial, the ceremonial being the necessary vehicle for
the expression of the moral. The Jewish sacrifices were, by divine intention, to reflect the moral
truths of obedience, self-sacrifice, self-dedication, love for and devotion to God, recognition of
sin, repentance, and many other spiritual conceptions. Throughout the Old Testament the moral
interprets the ritual and the ceremonial gives meaning to the ethical. It is indeed a narrow view
of Old Testament sacrifice to fail to see in its institution moral, ethical, and spiritual elements.
There was pervading the idea of sacrifice a principle of righteousness-. Sacrifice was the divinely
appointed means of securing a right standing before God in the Mosaic dispensation, and it is
faulty hermeneutics to interpret Old Testament sacrificial concepts in terms of New Testament the-
ology alone. It cannot be overemphasized that the interpreter of Old Testament thought, prac-
tices, and theological concepts must constantly remind himself that the Old Testament Hebrew did
not have at his disposal the Epistle to the Romans and its revelation of righteousness without the law
"even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ..." (Rom. 3:31-22), nor did he have
the Hebrews' Epistle and its testimony to the nature of Old Testament sacrifice as being typical
and a shadow of the good things to come. This of course is not to deny the necessity of faith on
the part of the Israelite, but to emphasize the proper importance and place of divinely instituted
sacrifice and Mosaic worship in its dispensation.
The interpreter of Old Testament sacrifice should be aware of two things often overlooked.
First, to follow to its logical conclusion the idea that the Old Testament Levitical sacrifices were
merely typical or efficacious only with respect to ceremonial sins, and had no real importance,
results in the denial of the importance of a great portion of the Pentateuch itself, especially Levi-
ticus in its entirety, and a great part of Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Such a view can
This article was originally presented as a paper for the Seventh General Meeting of the Midwestern
Section of the Evangelical Theological Society, May 4, 1962, at Moody Bible Institute, Chicago,
and appeared in the Summer 1962 issue of the E.T.S. Bulletin.
21
22 GRACE JOURNAL
give no satisfactory reason for the institution of sacrifice at all. The second factor often overlooked
in Old Testament sacrifice is that sacrifice was not to the Hebrew some crude, temporary, and
merely typical institution, nor a substitute for that dispensation until better things were provided by
revelation, but, as will be shown, sacrifice was then the only sufficient means of remaining in har-
monious relation to God. J_t was adequate for the period in which God intended it should serve.
This is not the same as saying Levitical sacrifice was on an equal with the sacrifice of Christ, nor
that the blood of bulls and goats could, from God's side, take away sins; but it is recognizing the
reality of the divine institution of Mosaic worship, and looking, as too often Old Testament inter-
preters fail to do, at sacrifice from the viewpoint of the Hebrew in the Old Testament dispensation.
Sacrifice, to the pious Hebrew, was not something unimportant, or simply a perfunctory ritual, but
it was an important element in his moral obedience to the revealed will of God. Sacrifice was by
its very nature intensely personal, ethical, moral, and spiritual, because it was intended to re-
flect the attitude of the heart and will toward God.
It is just at this point that the prophetic assaults upon the sacrificial system can find explanation.
The Israelites had come to believe that punctilious attention to sacrificial ritual and ceremony
could atone for their sins however great. But this notion was a misconception of the very principle
of the ceremonial system which was based upon moral and ethical conduct within the Covenant.
The prophets insisted that the people unite moral conduct with their religious observances. This
polemic against mere ceremonialism appears in many Old Testament passages (Cf. Psa. 50:23; 40:6-
10; 69:30; Isa. 1:11-15; Micah 6:6-8). The two sides to this problem are clearly seen in the words
of the Psalmist. He writes in Psalm 51: 16-17:
For thou delightest not in sacrifice; else would I give it:
Thou hast no pleasure in burnt-offering.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:
A broken and contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.
To the superficial observer this would appear as a rejection of sacrifice as a result of the later
higher moral concept of religion by the Hebrews. But verse 19 which follows repudiates this view;
for after the heart of the worshipper is turned in penitence toward God,
Then wilt thou delight in right sacrifices,
In burnt-offering and whole burnt-offering:
Then will they offer bullocks upon thine altar. (Ps. 51:19 RSV)
Views as to the Efficacy of Old Testament Sacrifices
To what extent did the Mosaic sacrifices atone? Several views have been proposed by Old
Testament expositors. On the one hand, it has been asserted that the Levitical sacrifices had no
power to atone for moral transgressions, but simply ceremonial offenses. Keil and Delitzsch more-
over, extend this view to include all transgressions, and thereby seemingly render the Old Testa-
ment sacrifices meaningless:
THE PROBLEM OF THE EFFICACY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES 23
...as sin is not wiped out by the death of the sinner, unless it is forgiven by the grace
of God, so devoting to death an animal laden with sin rendered neither a real nor symbol-
ical satisfaction or payment for sin, by which the guilt of it could be wiped away; but the
death which it endured in the sinner's stead represented merely the fruit and effect of sin.^
A second view holds that sin was not removed once forall by an animal sacrifice under the law,
but simply for a time, — from the interval of one sin-offering to another, or from one day of atone-
ment to another. A third position is that the Mosaic sacrifices, especially the sin and trespass-
offerings, made a real atonement for all sins, moral as well as ceremonial, as long as the sacri-
fices were presented in humble faith and repentance.
In the first view the atoning sacrifice simply reinstated the Israelite to his position as a legal
citizen of the covenant community; the second view holds sacrifice to be a temporary relief from
divine wrath with no final and complete purging of the conscience. "Else would they not ceased
to be offered? because the worshippers, having been once cleansed, would have had no more con-
sciousness of sins." (Heb. 10:2) The third position contends that the sacrifices were the divinely
appointed means of obtaining a real forgiveness of sins, which would be regarded as valid in the
counsels of God, and which reinstated the Israelite, not simply to his position as a citizen of the
covenant community, but to his position of fellowship with God.
The first view is stated by one writer as follows: "These Old Testament sacrifices availed to
'the flesh,' to ceremonial ends... the sacrifice of Christ avails for the 'conscience/ and removal of
guilt in the moral sphere. "2 This artificial distinction between the moral and ceremonial efficacy
of Old Testament sacrifice finds support by its advocates in the alleged denunciations of sacrifice
in the prophets and psalms. Such a view of the relation of the ceremonial element to the moral
element in Levitical sacrifices is not the Old Testament view at all. In the Levitical law there
was, to be sure, a great ceremonial system and ritual, but it was ceremony with an inward mean-
ing. The sacrifice had no efficacy apart from its meaning, but because of the very nature of sacri-
ficial ritual the ceremonial aspect could be, and often was, separable from its true inwardness. It
is to this that the prophets address their denunciations, the separation of the ritual from its inward
meaning, the perfunctory observance of outward forms without a due sense of their meaning and
value.
The Divine Promises
When the Law itself is consulted as to the effects of these sacrifices upon ceremonial, civil, or
moral transgression, it is always stated that the effect is the forgiveness of sins, with the Israelite
restored to both covenant and spiritual standing.
And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin-offering, and kill it for a sin-offering...
and the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he
shall be forgiven. (Lev. 4:33,35 AS V, Italics mine.)
The conscience of the pious Israelite, oppressed and burdened with sin, accepted with divine
assurance the fact that his sins were removed. This is not the same as saying, however, as the
24 GRACE JOURNAL
writer of Hebrews observes, that the frequent animal sacrifices effected a permanent peace and sat-
isfaction for the conscience, "Else would they not ceased to be offered?" (Heb. 10:2) Animal
sacrifices were never intended to effect such relief, nor could they, since they did not possess that
dynamic operation as the once for all efficacious sacrifice of Christ. Animal sacrifices, on the
other hand, had to be offered again and again for the atonement of sins.
But the reality of forgiveness is vouchsafed by the divine promises contained within the Law it-
self. All sins of weakness and rashness were completely atoned for by the sin-offerings whether
done knowingly or unwittingly (Lev. 4-5); by the trespass-offering such sins as lying, theft, fraud,
perjury, and debauchery were atoned for (Lev. 6:1-7); and on the Day of Atonement forgiveness
was obtained for all the transgressions of Israel, whether people or priests. 3
\
With\respect to the efficacy of the Old Testament sacrifices, Thomas J. Crawford's work, The
Doctrine of Atonement, is instructive in resolving this question. He writes,
So far as we can learn from the terms of the Mosaic statutes, the sacrifices seem to have
beeri of unfailing benefit in all cases in which they were punctually and exactly offered.
Their efficacy, such as it was, belonged to them ex opere opera to [by outward acts]. The
strict observance of the prescribed form was sufficient to secure for any Israelite the ac-
ceptance of his sacrifice, to the effect of "making an atonement for his sin that he had
committed, so that it should be forgiven him„
Therefore, on the one hand, it seems evident that the Mosaic sacrifices had a certain efficacy
ascribed to them in Old Testament Law. It is written again and again in the Book of Leviticus that
when the prescribed ritual had been duly performed by the worshipper, the sacrifice offered, and
the blood sprinkled, that. . . "it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" (Lev. 1: 4).
On the Day of Atonement complete cleansing and removal of sins is clearly taught in the ritual of
the two goats, in which one was slain and his blood sprinkled upon the mercy-seat in the Holy of
Holies to propitiate judicial wrath by covering the sins; and the other, after the sins of the people
were confessed over it, was sent away into the wilderness bearing the iniquities of the people, thus
symbolizing sin's complete removal. It is significant that there is not a word in the ceremony that
this great sacrifice made an atonement only with respect to ceremonial sins, but on the contrary, it
was an atonement for all the sins of the people. "And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head
of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their trans-
gressions, even all their sins" (Lev. 16:21). In the individual sin-offering it is promised that"...
the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned, and he shall be for-
given" (Lev. 4:35). From all this it is evident that a real atoning efficacy was in some way re-
lated to the Mosaic sacrifices by divine appointment. What the nature of this efficacy was will be
demonstrated later.
The Problem of the Epistle to the Hebrews
On the other hand, the New Testament teaching, especially the Epistle to the Hebrews, is very
emphatic in its declarations that "... the law having a shadow of the good things to come, not the
very image of the things, can never with the same sacrifices year by year, which they offer con-
tinually, make perfect them that draw nigh" (Heb. 10:11). For they "... cannot, as touching the
THE PROBLEM OF THE EFFICACY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES 25
conscience, make the worshipper perfect" (Heb. 9:9), since the blood of goats and bulls availed
only to "..o sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh" (Heb. 9:13), but "how much more shall the
blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself without blemish unto God, cleanse
your conscience from dead works ..." (Heb. 9:14), "for it is impossible that the blood of bulls and
goats should take away sins" (Heb. 10:4).
Here would appear to be two apparently opposite views of the efficacy of the Levitical sacri-
fices. But the reconciliation of the difficulty lies, not in a denial of either the Old or New Testa-
ment teachings, but in a harmonization of both. This is accomplished through a study of the two
different aspects under which sacrifice is regarded in the Mosaic ecomony and by the Hebrews'
Epistle respectively.
Reconciliation of the Problem
From the worshipper's standpoint the Levitical sacrifices were, in a sense, efficacious in a two-
fold way: (1)^ they healed the breach of covenant relationship which resulted from either ceremonial
or moral transgression, and kept secure their civil and ecclesiastical privileges; and (2) they pro-
cured also, when offered with unfeigned penitence and humble faith, actual forgiveness for the
sinner in that it is clearly stated the sacrifice "...shall make atonement for him as touching his sin
that he hath sinned, and jie shall be forgiven."
It is dishonoring, it seems, to God's word and promise, which is repeated over and over, to
contend that the sins under the first covenant were only symbolically, but never really, forgiven.
This is to fail to comprehend the meaning and purpose of Old Testament sacrifice and to reduce it
to vague and meaningless ritual. This does not really deal with the problem. It simply raises an-
other one — how can we explain the divine promises of forgiveness in Leviticus?
To be sure, the Levitical sacrifices were but shadows of the true, and most assuredly the blood
of bulls and goats can never take away sins, but this is looking at the matter both from the New
Testament's and from God's viewpoint. That is to say, it is one thing to view the matter from the
Old Testament worshipper's viewpoint, who actually participated in the objective ritual of the
animal sacrifice, and to whom there was not a word spoken as to these sacrifices being simply ob-
jective symbols of inward spiritual truths, for on the contrary, it is expressly stated "he shall be
forgiven." It is another matter, however, to look at the question from this side of the cross,
in the light of full revelation, and too, to view it from the standpoint of God's intended
purposes with regard to sacrifices. It should be noted, however, that this does not mean that a
certain understanding of the meaning of the forms was absent, since the ritual ceremonies were ed-
ucational in value — a process of working from outward form to inner meaning, which resulted in a
consciousness of inward communion with God.
The Two-Fold Divine Purpose in Sacrifice
How could God promise the truly repentant worshipper actual forgiveness if the prescribed ritual
was properly observed? The solution lies in God's eternal purposes in Old Testament sacrifices.
Old Testament ritual and worship may be said to have had a two-fold purpose, one purpose to be
revealed and realized in the Old Testament dispensation, the other hidden, and to be realized in
the New Testament dispensation.
26 GRACE JOURNAL
The Revealed and Realized Purpose
The covenant relationship between God and Israel was expressed in ritual worship. Since the
aim of the covenant was the process of sanctification expressed by the words in Leviticus 19:2:
"...ye shall be holy: for I the Lord your God am holy," the Mosaic ritual was intended as a con-
scious symbol of this truth. However, the ritual was not simply a system of outward signs of inter-
nal truths; but from the standpoint of the worshipper and of the Levitical law, it was the necessary
vehicle, for the actual realization of forgiveness, and for communion and fellowship between God
and Israel within the Covenant. This means that a sacrifice did not symbolize forgiveness of sins
and propitiation of God apart from the actual realization of these effects. Sacrifice, in the Old
Testament, was not merely a symbol or type, for this is to rob it of all immediate meaning and pur-
pose; but it expressed the transference of legal guilt to the substitute and the imposition of the cap-
ital punishment due the sinner, carried out in the act of sacrifice itself. Thus, from the worshipper's
standpoint, and on the basis of God's own promises in Leviticus, the Mosaic sacrifices were effic-
acious in this two-fold sense; fthey maintained a covenant relationship between God and Israel, and
when offered in humble faith and penitence, they secured for the worshipper a valid atonement and
the forgiveness of all sins, moral or ceremonial^ It is, however, quite a different matter to view
the Levitical sacrifices in the light of New Testament revelation and from the standpoint of God's
ultimate and hidden purposes. It must be carefully observed, therefore, that whatever efficacy was
ascribed to the Levitical sacrifices, it was not inherent within the animal itself, and did not, strict-
ly speaking, belong to the sacrifices themselves, which were symbols, from God's viewpoint, of the
Lamb of God.
.0 ,n
V Levitical sacrifices were the divinely appointed means of objectively signifying to Israel that
man was sinful and that sin was a serious matter which required the forfeiting of one's life and the
shedding of blood. Therefore, the Israelites offered animal sacrifices in token of contrition and as
a "medium" of pardon. The worshipper might not fully understand how pardon and sacrifice were
connected, yet by relying on the divinely-appointed medium and promises, he was actually de-
livered from the fear which guilt produced, with respect to that particular transgression. The wor-
shipper who confessed his sin over the head of the victim, the blood of which was then applied to
the altar, was in a real sense professing the assurance of pardon.
The Hidden and Future Purpose
The direct and immediate efficacy of the sin-offering, on the basis of God's promises, was the
securing of forgiveness of sin for the penitent Israelite, and for the entire covenant community on
the great Day of Atonement. Atonement was secured, as has been shown, as a result of, and never
apart from, the actual ritual sacrifice and death of the animal. Thus the sacrifice itself was the
necessary vehicle for securing forgiveness of sins. But it has also been stated that the efficacy did
not lie inherently in the animal itself, nor in the Israelite's understanding that the sacrifice he was
making was only a shadow and type of the Messiah's sacrifice. How then could God promise the
truly penitent worshipper actual forgiveness if the prescribed ritual was properly observed? The
solution lies in God's eternal purposes in the Old Testament sacrifices and religious institutions.
While they truly atoned for the sins of the worshipper, yet the Old Testament sacrifices were valid-
ated in the mind of God on the basis of the all-sufficient, truly efficacious sacrifice of the Lamb
of God slain from the foundation of the world (I Peter 1:20).
THE PROBLEM OF THE EFFICACY OF OLD TESTAMENT SACRIFICES 27
It is categorically true that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin; but then
the Old Testament never gays, that [t did. What God promised to Israel was the forgiveness of sins
and restoration tg covenant standing to be accomplished through the death and shedding of the
blood of an innocent substitute victim. It was the forfeiting of a life for a life, which was declared
in the sprinkling of the blood, "For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you
upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason
of the life."
On the basis of the grace shown to Israel in her divine election and the institution of the Cov-
enant, God provided, by His mercy, a means for the sinner to draw near to Him continually. This
was the Levitical system of sacrifices. He did not command Moses to tell the children of Israel that
a lamb without blemish could in itself expiate sins, but He did promise to accept the life of an an-
imal, ceremonially pure, in substitution for the life of the actual transgressor, and in view of this
act, would forgive his iniquities. It must not be forgotten that it was God Himself who instituted
sacrifices, specified the procedure, and promised forgiveness.
Hence, the apparent contradiction between Leviticus and Hebrews 10:4 where we are told that
" ... it is impossible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins," is reconciled in the
fact that the Old Testament sacrifices were efficacious only with respect to God's forgiving grace,
and not with respect to the final expiation or removal of the sins themselves.
But forgiveness was promised and guaranteed, according to the Apostle, on the basis of God's
future purposes in Christ — the Lamb of God,
Whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his blood, to show his righteous-
ness because of the passing over of _sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God. (Rom.
3:25, Italics mine.)
Note also Hebrews 9:15, where the death of Christ, as the Mediator of the new covenant, is
said to have been "... for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant
...," the efficacy of His death being regarded by God as retrospective. And again in 9:25 the
Apostle states that " . . .now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by
the sacrifice of himself."
Through the all sufficient sacrifice of Christ for sins, God's righteousness was at last vindicated.
The Apostle in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 10:4 confirms the fact that while the Old Testament sacri-
fices provided forgiveness for the pious Israelite, yet those sins could never be purged away by the
blood of bulls and goats, hence they were "passed over"5 by the forbearing grace of God until ex-
piated by the sacrifice of Christ.
On account of the eternal purpose of God to punish sin and provide an atonement in His Son,
God pardoned the sins of His people under the Old Testament Mosaic dispensation, but they were
not actually purged away until covered by the blood of Christ. Owing to the forbearance of His
grace He accepted the animal substitutes to make a covering for sin and propitiate His judicial
wrath against sin, until in the fulness of time He through His own Lamb would validate all forgive-
ness granted through atonement by animal types. This means that Christ's atonement was made and
28 GRACE JOURNAL
accepted in God's sovereign counsels and foreknowledge before the foundation of the world (I Pet.
1:20; Rev. 13:8), so that the humble and repentant worshipper with his sacrifices of the Old Testa-
ment was accepted on the ground of it.
DOCUMENTATION
1. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. 3 vols. Edinburgh :
T. & T. Clark, 1909, p. 305.
2. W. Sanday (ed.), Different Conceptions of Priesthood and Sacrifice. New York: Longmans,
Green, and Co., 1900, p, 80.
3. Alfred Cave, The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice and Atonement. Revised ed. Edinburgh:
T. &T. Clark, 1890, p. 151.
4. Thomas J. Crawford, The Doctrine of the Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement. 4th ed.
revised. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954, p. 249.
5. The Greek word is paresis meaning "passing by" and is used nowhere else in the New Testament.
The term aphesis usually translated "remission" occurs seventeen times, but is not used here.
Quite obviously the apostle would not have used a different word here, unless he intended to
express a different sense. The Authorized Version is incorrect in rendering paresis here as "re-
mission"; the ASV corrects this however.
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH
A Critical Monograph on Exodus 6:3
Abridged by the Author
JOHN J. DAVIS
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty; but by my
name Jehovah I was not known to themo" (Ex. 6:3 A.S.V.)
Anyone who has committed himself to a serious study of the Old Testament is aware of the fact
that certain portions of Old Testament history and in particular certain verses have become focal
points of critical and theological investigation. The text under consideration is one such text.
To a rather large group of Old Testament scholars this verse has been more or less the basic proof
text for the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch. Others have either ignored a treatment of
the verse or proposed unsupported solutions to the problems it presents. For the conservative
scholar, however, it gives unmeasurable liaht into the relation of the Patriarchs to their God; and
more generally, the method and scope of Divine revelation in the Old Testament.
Because Exodus 6:3 has become a basic proof text for the documentary analysis of the Penta-
teuch, it is imperative that we briefly consider this very popular theory. This theory originated
with Jean Astruc, a French physician, who, by the way, did not deny the Mosaic authorship of
the Pentateuch. In his famous treatise, Conjectures Concerning the Original Memoranda which
it Appears Moses Used to Compose the Book of Genesis, Astruc proposed that on the basis of the
use of divine names two basic documents could be distinguished: one called A (using Elohim) and
B (employing Yahweh). It is interesting to note that this idea was applied to Genesis alone. It
was not until 1791 that the theory was applied to the entire Pentateuch by Eichhorn. From this
time on the variant uses of the Divine names were employed as a basis for distinguishing various
documents. The theory gained popularity as the years passed and other methods were also em-
ployed to distinguish source material for the Pentateuch. The documentary analysis reached its
peak under the leadership of Julius Wellhausen, who died in 1918. This system as it is held today
has basically four source documents: (J) Yahwist, presumed to have been written about 850 B.C.,
(E) orElohist, about 750 B.C., (D) or Deuteronomy about 620 B.C. and (P) in the completed
Pentateuch about 500 B.C. Unlike the view of Astruc, those who advocate this theory today deny
the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
Since the days of Wellhausen, there have been many modifications to this classic form of lit-
erary criticism of the Pentateuch. The present day efforts are to assume the existence of the doc-
uments and extend the analysis even further, that is, back to the "traditions" which are contained
in the documents. ' In this monograph, we shall not endeavor to examine this latter effort in Old
Testament criticism. Our major concern is with the basic four document analysis which underlies
most of the present day Pentateuchal criticism.
29
30 GRACE JOURNAL
With this rather brief introduction let us proceed to the problems of the text itself 0
l„ MINOR PROBLEM: What is the significance of the name "El-Shaddai" in relation to
the Patriarchs?
There are two basic views in regard to this Problem, We shall consider each with a brief eval-
uation „
A. The Liberal View; The liberal view generally holds that this name for God is to be traced
back to a natural origin,, It holds its origin to be like that of the tribal deities of the nations that
surrounded the children of Israel in their early history. This view contends that El Shaddai repre-
sents a primitive form of worship among the Patriarchs. Their worship, according to this view,
was basically the same as the other nations except for the fact that some of their ideas and moral
codes were in some aspects higher.
There are many views as to the etymology of this title among liberal scholars, but the one most
commonly held is that "Shaddai" comes from the Babylonian "Sadda'u," the gentilic of Sadu,
Saddu, the regular word for mountain„ The chief defender of this view is Albright. 2 Another
writer states the liberal position in the following words:
When the Hebrews left Mesopotamia, they brought with them a religion which in many
respects was like the nature religion of the Fertile Crescent. . . Apparently their chief god
was known as Shaddai (or El Shaddai), which means "the one of the mountains" - a moun-
tain deity or storm deity usually known by the title Baal (lord) among the Canaanites.
The liberal view, as previously noted, holds that El-Shaddai was a humanly-conceived moun-
tain god of the Israelites. The relation of El-Shaddai to the Patriarchs, therefore, was merely as
a native god, who was only one of many such gods of the land. While this view is extremely pop-
ular among the liberal critics, it is not a strong view in the light of Biblical evidence. The refu-
tation of this view is two fold: First, it is a view conceived and based upon a false assumption:
namely, that monotheistic religion is a natural evolutionary product of human thought. To this we
would reply that religious evolution, upon which this concept is built, is not a proven theory, but
a hypothesis; it does not, therefore, provide a sound basis for the liberal view of developed mon-
otheism. Secondly, the Biblical evidence is most clearly against the view that man "conceived"
or "became aware" of high moral and religious concepts. The liberal view disregards the many
texts which clearly point out the fact that man in his sinful, fallen state, cannot conceive of, and
will not seek after a Holy God. (Psalm 14, Romans 3:1 1-18). Furthermore, this view of the name El-
Shaddai does not fit any context in which it appears unless it is forced against the natural reading
of the text. The textual and contextual evidence are totally against the idea of this being a
"mountain deity."
If the liberal contention were true, we should expect to find indications of a lower moral and
religious idea in the use of this name, but such is not the case. The same moral and religious con-
cepts are associated with this name as with the name Yahweh. For example, the blessing is the
same (Genesis 17:1). Notice in this text Yahweh says "I am El-Shaddai." It would seem from
this statement that identity and equality are asserted of both these names. The moral demand is
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 31
"walk before me, and be thou perfect." To contend that Shaddai is merely a mountain deity is to
disregard the place the name is given in the Scriptures,, Also, in this regard, it should be ob-
served that in some contexts the names Yahweh and El-Shaddai are used alternately with equal
majesty and holiness (cf. Ruth l:20f.).
It should also be noted that this view fails to provide a motive and a reason why the other
nations did not evolve into monotheistic concepts,, How did Israel, a small nation surrounded by
idolatry and sin, rise above nature worship and arrive at a high monotheism while the other nations
did not? Without the fact of Divine intervention and revelation, no reasonable answer is possible.
On the basis of these facts, and the positive evidence to be presented, the writer considers the
liberal view false and untenable.
B. The Conservative view: The basic understanding of the conservative view is that the name
"El Shaddai" is of divine, not natural origin. The name, it is asserted, was revealed by God, and
not conceived by man. While all conservative scholars agree on this basic principle, there is
little agreement as to the etymology and significance of this name in relation to the patriarchs.
There are four basic views in this regard. The first view is that Shaddai comes from the root sadad
"to be strong" or "powerful." This view seems to be the more popular. The emphasis, therefore,
in respect to the patriarchs, is that of God's power and strength. Oehler favors this view in his
Theology of the Old Testament.4
The second view of the name Shaddai is that its root is sadad "to destroy" or "to terrify." This
view is held by Mack."5
The third view maintains that Shaddai comes from a compound word (from |e_ (<Jaser) and day
which in Hebrew means "sufficiency." For a statement of this view compare John Calvin."
The fourth, and not too well accepted view is that proposed by the Scofield Bible. ' This view
contends that the name comes from sad which has primary reference to the female breast. The
name, therefore, signified nourishment and strength to the Patriarchs.
The writer feels the conservative view is the proper view and is the one best supported by the
Scriptures. The most probable etymology of this title will be discussed in the following arguments
in defense of this view. The arguments for the conservative view are two-fold:
1. Exegetical Argument
The phrase under consideration is in the English, "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac
and unto Jacob as God Almighty..." The key words are "appeared" and "God Almighty" in this
phrase. The verb 'era' (appeared) is the niphal imperfect first person singular of the root raah.
This root has the basic meaning of "to see, to observe, to look at."° The niphal, however, car-
ries the idea of "letting oneself be seen," or "to appear," when used with ^el or Jf.. The sense
of this statement seems to be that to these Patriarchs God "revealed" Himself or made Himself to
appear "in the capacity of El Shaddai. The prepositional prefix Jaf. gives the idea of "in the
character of or "in the capacity of."
32 GRACE JOURNAL
The name El Shaddai has been the subject of much conjecture and argument especially as to its
etymology. The writer has become aware of the fact that this name, apart from Biblical material,
may be explained by several suggested roots, which are equally attractive, but he feels that in
the light of all evidence that the name Shaddai comes from the root s'adad which means "to be
strong" or "powerful." Supporting this assumption is a well respected lexicographer, Gesenius,
who identifies this name thusly:
Shaddai-Almiqhty, omnipotent as an epithet of Jehovah, sometimes preceded by iej_ Gen-
esis 17:1, 28:3, Exodus 6:3. o.10
The writer will not attempt to argue further on this point, for the argument would be like the
liberal argument, purely subjective. He will let the case rest here and proceed to a stronger and
more conclusive proof for this position — the contextual argument,,
2. Contextual Argument:
The strongest argument in favor of the view that Shaddai comes from s'adad meaning "to be
strong," and that this name characterized Yahweh as the Mighty One or the Almighty who was
able to perform the things promised, is found in the contexts in which this name appears both in
the Pentateuch and in the other books.
The name Shaddai appears some forty-eight times in the Old Testament. The greater majority
of these texts regard Shaddai or El Shaddai in the primary aspect of power and might. Power and
might are many times demonstrated in special blessings and acts. In the book of Genesis the name
appears only six times (Genesis 17:1, 28:3, 35:11, 43:14, 48:3, 49:25) and in almost every case
the name is used in connection with some blessing. A careful study of the nature of these blessings
will reveal the fact that only an all powerful God could fulfill these promises. The name occurs
in Exodus only once (Ex. 6:3), and Numbers twice (Num. 24:4, 24:16). This name really displays
its significance in the books of Ruth and Job. In Ruth it occurs only twice (Ruth 1:20,21) but the
basic idea connected with it is that of chastisement and affliction. In Job it occurs thirty-one
times and has the same idea basically as that in Ruth. In many of the passages the idea connected
with this name is decidedly power and majestic glory, (cf. Job 5:17, 6:4,14, 8:3, 15:25, 21:20,
22:25, 23:16, 27:2, 34:12) In Job 37:23 Shaddai is clearly characterized as "excellent in power."
In use of the name Shaddai in the Psalms (Ps. 68: 14, 91: 1) seems to support this meaning also. El-
Shaddai is spoken of as "scattering kings," (Psalm 68: 14), which is an open display of sovereign
power. The other uses of this name, Isa. 13:6, Ezek. 1:24, 10:5 and Joel 1:15 also indicate the
same basic idea of power and might.
It will be seen from the preceding material that while other etymologies of the name Shaddai
such as sad (breasted one) could possibly apply in one or two texts, the greater majority of occur-
ences support the idea of power and might. It should be remembered that these names for God in
the Old Testament were not used without purpose or plan. It will be shown that when various
ideas and acts of God were discussed, the writer under the leadership of the Holy Spirit, carefully
selected the name that characterized the God who was performing or was about to perform these
acts.
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 33
II. MAJOR PROBLEM: Was the name "Yahweh" known to the Patriarchs?
There are three main solutions proposed for this problem. Each shall be stated and evaluated.
A more lengthy treatment of the last view will be given because it is considered to be the proper
explanation of Exodus 6:3b.
A. First Occurrence View: This view contends that the name Yahweh was not known to the
Patriarchs but was first made known to Moses. It generally argues for a natural origin of the name
rather than a supernatural revelation of it. This is essentially the view of all liberal Old Testa-
ment theologians. John Edgar McFadyen expresses this view as follows:
Of very great importance is the passage, 6:2-13, which describes the revelation given
to Moses, asserting that the fathers knew the God of Israel only by the name El Shaddai,
while the name of Jehovah, which was then revealed to Moses for the first time, was un-
known to them . ' '
Some holding this view trace the origin of the name back to the Kenites, a branch from the
Midianites. This view is expressed by Karl Budde as follows
"Yahweh, therefore, is the God of the tribe to which Moses, on his flight from Egypt,
joined himself by marriage; the mountain god of Horeb, who appears to him and promises
him to lead his brethren out of Egypt." '^
The supposed textual basis for this view is Exodus 18. From this chapter two basic assertions
are made which are claimed to be the proof for the origin of the name Yahweh. First, Moses is
conceived to be a subordinate to Jethro (Ex. 18:24) and second, Jethro sacrifices to Yahweh (Ex.
18:12). It is concluded therefore, that Jethro, priest of Midian, is in effect a priest of Yahweh.
The objections to this view are many.
First: The account in Exodus 18 is hardly a decisive proof of the subordination of Moses to
Jethro officially. What Moses received in this chapter was gracious counsel, not an official com-
mand.
Second: Verse twelve does not say explicitly that Jethro himself offered the sacrifice but only
that he "took" the sacrifice.
Third: Jethro's first mention of Yahweh is after the exodus and after he is told of these events
by Moses.
Fourth: Jethro is not called a priest of Yahweh but a priest of Midian. The Midianites were
regarded as an idolatrous people (Num. 25, 31). There is no evidence that the Midianites wor-
shipped Yahweh.
Other arguments could be brought to bear which would demonstrate the errors of this view, but
the foregoing should suffice.
34 GRACE JOURNAL
It may be asked at this point, why this verse is so important to the critics,, As previously
pointed out, the material found in the Pentateuch can, according to the liberal critics, be traced
to four main source documents (J, E, D, P). Up to Exodus 6:3, P (by the critical analysis) is
quite careful not to use the name Yahweh. The reason for this, it is claimed, is that P believed
that the name was first revealed to Moses and therefore refrains from anachronisms by not using
the name in the earlier Genesis narratives. Exodus 6:3 therefore is the reason for the anomaly in
P's use of the divine names. The characteristic name for P is Elohim according to their analysis.
The primary basis of the documentary analysis of the Pentateuch, at least originally, was the
use of different names of God in various passages. The critics of this school of thought assume that
the employment of various names for God indicates the use of various documents in the compilation
of the Pentateuch. There are other areas of study that are employed to support this theory, but it
is only the use of Divine names that the writer is interested in at this point.
The critics of this school assume that writers of the original source documents never used any
name other than was assigned to him or that was in accordance with his peculiar views. This as-
sumption, in the opinion of the writer, is not the result of a careful study of the occurrence of
Divine names, but an arbitrary assumption designed to support an untenable theory. If it could be
proven that in just one case a writer used a name other than by habit, the theory would collapse.
Against this view we raise the following objections:
First: A careful exegesis of this verse will not support this view. A proper understanding of
the idiom "to know the name Yahweh" reveals that a first occurrence of the name is not implied
here. A more complete discussion of the exegesis of the verse will be presented later.
Second: If Exodus 6:3 were a reference to merely the name of God as a name only, the pass-
age would prove equally that before this time Elohim was unknown as a name for Deity, and God
should appear uniformly as El-Shaddai in Patriarchal history.
Some negative or liberal critics, in answer to this argument would remind us that Exodus 6:3 is
the first time P used the name Yahweh. They argue that P was quite careful in his use of Yahweh
in order to avoid anachronisms. J and E, however, were not so careful. The writer of this paper
will show later, that these assumptions will not stand for at least two reasons. First, P does use the
name Yahweh before Exodus 6:3 (Gen. 17:1, 21:1). The critics realizing this is a serious prob-
lem have concluded that these passages must have been changed by a redactor. This answer is
not at all acceptable as will be shown later in this discussion. Second, the assertion that J and E
are not careful as to their use of the Divine names is easily disproved by a careful study of the
contexts in which these names appear.
Third: The early occurrence of the name in Genesis destroys this assumption.
a. The fact that Yahweh occurs in conjunction with Elohim in Genesis chapter two causes the
critics considerable difficulty. How shall the documents be distinguished in this case?
b. There are passages in the book of Genesis where the name of Yahweh is introduced in a
way which utterly precludes the supposition that it is used proleptically, or that it is anything but
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 35
a correct account of the incident and the actual term employed. For example the use of Yahweh
in Genesis 15:7, where God clearly asserts, ".„.l am Yahweh, . ." or when Jacob on his death-
bed declares "I have waited for thy salvation, Yahweh" (Genesis 49: 18). A more striking passage
than even these is found in Genesis chapter four. There Eve states, ...I have gotten a man with
the help of Yahweh."
c. The use of the name Yahweh after the dispersion of tongues is frequent and vital to the
significance of many passages. Genesis 22: 14, 24:35, 40, 42, 48, 56, 24:50, 51, 26:22.
d. The name Yahweh is compounded with other names long before the time of Moses. For ex-
ample the name appears in the name of the mother of Moses, Jochebed (YSkebed) meaning Yahweh
is glorious" (Exodus 6:20, Numbers 26:59). Against this argument some have suggested that Moses
changed her name. This, however, is but a futile attempt to discredit unmistakable evidence.
That Moses would have done this, to say the least, is highly improbable. There are also some
other names from ancient time which occur in the genealogies in I Chronicles (I Chron. 2:25, 7:8,
418, Ahijah, Abiah) that are compounded with Yahweh.
The occurrence of the name in the word "Moriah" (Hamoriah cf. Genesis 22: 14) suggests an
early knowledge of the name.
Fourth: The idiom "to know a name" as it is used in the Old Testament will not permit the
liberal understanding of Exodus 6:3. Consider the following example, noting the book in which
the reference is found and the chronological setting: Isa. 52:5-6: verse six reads:
"Therefore people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I
am he that doth speak; behold it is I." (cf. also Jer. 16:21)
Upon a careful reading of these texts, it is at once obvious that the higher critical view of the
expression "to know the name of Yahweh" as it is found in Exodus 6:3 is not only misleading but
incorrect. If they are correct, then these texts could mean the name was not actually known until
Isaiah's and Jeremiah's time, but this on the other hand, would then be in conflict with the state-
ment of Moses. The contradiction disappears when the proper view of the idiom is realized. For
other examples of this expression compare II Chron. 6:33, Isa. 19:20-21, Ezek. 20:5,9, 39:6-7,
Psa. 33:18.
Fifth: The higher critical method of analysis mutilates the Biblical text, and beside that, it is
not a consistent theory. That this theory mutilates the text is proven by the analysis of Genesis
28: 19-29 where writers give many alternate changes from E to J back and forth. That this theory
is saturated with obvious contradictions in application is evidenced by the following facts:
a. The name "Yahweh" occurs in two passages of P before Ex. 6:3 (Gen. 17:1, 21:16). In
both cases a redactor or copyist is invoked to provide the solution to this embarrassing occurrence.
b. AstoE, the name "Yahweh" occurs in four passages (Gen. 15:1, 2, 22:11, 27:7b). In
these cases as in the previous a redactor is employed.
36 GRACE JOURNAL
Co J uses the term Elohim in many passages (Gen. 3:1,3,5, 4:25, 7:9, 9:27, 16:24). Once
again redactors are employed to relieve the difficulty.
d. P contradicts J if the liberal critic's theory is maintained, for J states that God was wor-
shipped by the name Yahweh even before the flood (Gen. 4:25), that He revealed Himself by that
name to Abram (Gen. 15:7), while P declares in Ex. 6:3 that the name Yahweh was not known to
the Patriarchs.
Sixth: The experience of literary men and the history of literature are here in open conflict
with the pretensions of the critics. None of these scholars now claims to discover in the Penta-
teuch less than four main writers and a "redactor," while most of them require many more. This
skill, it might be noted, is asserted in investigating a foreign and ancient tongue, with no outside
documents for comparison, and no knowledge of the alleged writers. We therefore ask, what is
the basis for these assumptions of the critics? The answer is not a careful, objective study of
Biblical literature and language, but an arbitrary, biased presupposition that the religion of Israel
is the natural product of evolutionary processes. The fact that there are so many divergent opin-
ions among the critics is evidence that this analysis is not a system, but a scheme. A scheme in
which there is an agreement on the end to be accomplished, and on the starting point, but the
process is largely the application of individual and subjective notions.
Seventh: A serious logical fallacy is also to be discerned in the use of Divine names as it re-
lates to the documentary analysis. It can be demonstrated that the higher critical method of doc-
umentation is to argue in a circle. Differences are first created and then arguments are based on
them. Documents are distinguished on the basis of the use of Divine names and then their corre-
spondences with certain assumed traits or characteristics are claimed as proof for the objective
existence of these documents.
Eighth: The documentary analysis assumes that the varied use of the Divine names is usually
an indication of authorship. The same argument is applied in respect to various literary differ-
ences. A more dependable and proven explanation for these phenomena is that different situations
and subject matter called for both different literary styles and vocabulary.
Ninth: The constant appeal, by the critic, to a redactor is a strong evidence that the theory
bears many fallacies and weaknesses. The redactor is called to serve in Genesis 2:4b, 3:24, 4:25,
7:9, 9:27, 17:1, 21:1b, 20:18, 28:21, 22:11, etc. Now, the writer should like to ask at this
point, how is it to be determined what is and what is not the work of a redactor? If the Divine
names are indications of source documents of the Pentateuch, then they must be dependably con-
sistent at this point. If but one name has been changed by a so-called redactor, then how are we
to know if the other names have not been changed? Or furthermore, how do we know, for ex-
ample, that where a redactor is claimed to have changed Elohim to Yahweh in the E document
that perhaps the text is correct and a very energetic redactor has not changed the other portion of
the context? Perhaps Hie context was really the work of J and a redactor changed all the names
of Yahweh to Elohim. The reader might argue at this point that the writer is arguing from con-
jecture. The writer would most quickly admit this and at the same time, would point out that the
critics holding this theory must be charged with the same fallacy. They have no more objective
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 37
proof for their contentions that the passage was an E document in which a redactor changed a
name to Yahweh than his contention that it was a J document which had the Divine name changed
to Elohim.
B. Interrogative View: This view holds that the reading of the text is in the form of a ques-
tion not a statement. It would have Exodus 6:3 read:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, as God Almighty: but by
my name Yahweh was I not known to them?"
Two writers who find this view acceptable are Jamieson and Scott.
This view is not necessarily contrary to the writer's view, but it is not an easily supported
view. The grammar may permit this view but a consideration of the movement of the general con-
text does not easily support such a reading. Such a reading could have been more clearly indi-
cated in the Hebrew if this reading were intended, but it is not. Finally, very few, if any trans-
lations have understood this to be the reading of the Hebrew text.
C. The Special Revelation View:, The special revelation view contends that the name "Yah-
weh" was known to the Patriarchs but in a somewhat limited sense. They did not have a complete
knowledge of many of the aspects of this name especially in its redemptive significance. Special
redemptive aspects of the name were revealed and experienced in the days of Moses and in par-
ticular in the exodus from Egypt. This view is expressed clearly by Henry Cowles:
The meaning is, not that the name of Yahweh was never used by them or given of God
to them: but that its special significance had not been manifested to them as He was now
about to make it manifest. 13
Others who hold this view or a similar form of it are Hastings, Patrick, Wordsworth, Keil,
Raven, Wiener, Al lis, Unger and Oehler.
In the light of all the evidence from the Biblical text, the writer considers this to be the pro-
per view.
The arguments in support of this view are three-fold:
1. Exegetical Argument: In order to deal accurately with the text at hand, it is imperative
that there be a clear understanding of the text as it reads in the Hebrew text. Many of the errors
which have arisen in the interpretation of this verse could have been avoided if the language and
the syntax of this text were more carefully considered. Since the first part of the text was dealt
with under the consideration of the minor problem, the writer shall proceed to examine the last
phrase of the text which translated literally reads: "and (in the capacity of) my name Yahweh I
was not known to them."
In the first place it should be observed that the emphatic word of the sentence is Semi ("my
name") and is so considered because it is first in the Hebrew sentence. The fact that this word is
38 GRACE JOURNAL
emphatic is not without important implications, for it will be shown that the Hebrew concept of a
name is far more than just that of an identifying title. In the Old Testament there was a peculiar
signification attached to the name. '4
The name "Yahweh" is an important word not only to this text but to the whole Old Testament.
The etymology of this word has been disputed by many men for many years. Some have attempted
to connect it with the Arabic hawa which means to "bloW'or "breathe." Others have traced the
origin of this word to Egyptian, Phoenician and Canaanitish influences. Their arguments for this
etymology are not convincing at all, especially since they are based upon the presupposition that
the religion of Israel may be traced to natural origins as may the religions of the heathen nations.
As to the formation of the name Yahweh, it is agreed among most lexicographers and other
writers on the subject that the term Yahweh, however it might be pointed, is the regularly formed
Qal imperfect of the verb Hayah (to be) an obsolete form of Hayah . This view is not shared by
all authorities, however. Some would contend that the name is to be understood as a Hiphil im-
perfect. '5 While this view is permissible grammatically, it is in conflict with Exodus 3: 14 where
the name is explained. There the form is clearly a Qal. When Moses asked the Lord what name
he should use in identifying the "God of your fathers" (vs. 13), the Lord answered saying, Jehyeh
'eser 'ehyeh "I am that I am." He also told them that ^hyeh slahni alekem "I am has sent me
unto you." The verb translated "I am" in both phrases is ?ehyeh, which is the Qal imperfect first
person singular of hayah . If *ehyeh therefore, is understood as the Qal imperfect first person sin-
gular from the verb hayah and is His name, it is also reasonable to regard Yahweh as it appears in
Exodus 6:3 as coming from the same root and also the Qal stem. The latter form, of course, is the
third person singular of that stem and is translated "He is." The only difference between the two
names is, that the one is a verb in the first person, and the other is the same verb in the third per-
son. The meaning of the one is " I am," and the meaning of the other is "He is."
Supporting the view that this stem is the Qal is Edward Mack who makes the following remark:
It is evident from the interpretative passages (Exodus 3:6) that the form is the future
of the simple stem (Kal) and not future of the causative (Hiphil) stem in the sense of "giv-
er of life" an idea not borne out by any of the occurrences of the word.^°
The writer maintains therefore, that the translation "I am" or "He is" is the proper one in view
of the fact that the Qal is used in these texts. But the case for this understanding does not rest
here. The fact that the imperfect is used in connection with these verbs also supports this con-
clusion. The imperfect state of the Hebrew verb does not always have to designate future time as
some have erroneously assumed. A careful examination of the scope of the imperfect state will
reveal that it may have primary reference to present states or actions as well as future. '*
By the expression "I am," Yahweh is to be understood as a God who is eternal and self-exist-
ent. If the Hiphil stem is understood in regard to His name, the meaning is somewhat lower. He
then is regarded as the "first cause of all things" or "life-giver."
That the translation of the verb ^ehyeh is properly "I am" is further substantiated by the ren-
dering of the Septuagint. The first phrase of Exodus 3: 14 reads ego eimi ho on. Eimi is a present
active indicative and Sn is a present participle of the same verb, eimi. This phrase would be
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 39
literally translated "I am the one who is." The other occurrence of ^hyeh is also translated with
the present participle, oh. If the translators had understood the imperfect state with future im-
plications, they would have used the future tense, but such, apparently was not the case.
Another strong argument for the rendering "I am" is found in the translations and interpretation
of the name Yahweh in the New Testament. There are three very clear instances where this name
is given definite meaning. The first is found in Matthew 22:32. There we read:
"I am the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not
the God of the dead, but of the living."
The verb translated "I am" is eimi r a present active indicative. The same form is found in
Mark: 12:26 which is a similar quotation of Exodus 3:6. The last instance of this phenomenon is
seen in John 8:58. Here the Greek once again for "I am" is ego eimi.
It would seem, therefore, if the idea of the imperfect were "I will be" or "He will be," both
the LXX and the Greek of the New Testament would have recognized it. But such is not the case,
so the writer therefore contends for the rendering "I am" denoting the eternal, self-existence of
Yahweh.
The next word of the phrase under consideration is a vital word, and it is this word that holds
the key to the meaning and interpretation of the text under consideration. The word noda'ti which
appears in the text of the Hebrew Bible is a Niphal perfect, first person singular, from the verb
yada( "to know." The real problem, involved in this word, is to determine what is meant when
it is used in the expression "to know a name." The liberal critics have maintained that to know
the name is to be acquainted with the title. "To make known a name," to their way of thinking,
is merely to present the name for the first time. This assumption, it will be shown, is not the
case, and the fact is, that the uses of this idiom in the Old Testament furnish the clue to the sol-
ution of this whole problem. When the expressions "to know Yahweh" or to "know the name of
Yahweh" are used in the Old Testament they carry more than the idea of just to be acquainted
with the radicals yhwh. For example the verb yada< is used five times in respect to Yahweh in
the book of Exodus alone, and in every case it is quite obvious that it has reference to more than
just an acquaintance with a name. '° In every case it suggests an experiential knowledge of both
the person and power of Yahweh. In every case the knowledge of Yahweh is connected with some
deed or act of Yahweh which in some way reveals both His person and power. In Exodus 16:12
Yahweh spoke to Moses saying "I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel: speak unto
them saying, at even ye shall be filled with bread; and ye shall know that I am Yahweh your
God." It should be noted that first, in respect to time, this is considerably later than the account
of Exodus 6:3. Is it to be assumed, therefore, on the basis of the liberal or negative understanding
of the verb ya~dac , that the children of Israel still didn't know who Yahweh was? Secondly, that
his knowledge involves more than just an acquaintance with a name, is proven by the fact that the
knv-vledge of Yahweh was the result of a particular experience of provision by Yahweh. They
were to know Yahweh in a special manner. They had already learned of Him as deliverer; now
they would know Him as their provider.
40 GRACE JOURNAL
The verb yadac is not only used to convey the idea of knowledge of a thing, but knowledge
as a result of specific experience,, This seems to be the idea expressed in Ezekiel 25: 14. '"
If the reader is not convinced at this point of this use of the verb yadac, there are several
more uses of this verb that most clearly demonstrate that its meaning goes far beyond a mere know-
ledge of facts. This verb is also used for knowledge when both revelation and experience are in-
volved. It is in this sense that the writer feels it is to be understood in the text under question,
and to give evidence to this assertion he will present several cases for consideration. First, Jer.
28:9:
"The prophet that prophesieth of peace, when the word of the prophet shall come to
pass, then shall the prophet be known , that Jehovah hath truly sent him."
According to this text a prophet was really "known" as the man sent from God when his words
were fulfilled. This is the sense of Exodus 6:3, Yahweh was to be "known" or "made known" as
He manifested and revealed Himself in the special acts of deliverence. The writer should also
like to point out that here the verb form used in Jer. 28:9 is yiuadac the niphil imperfect third
person singular masc. of the verb yadaf . It is interesting to note, that the stem used in Exodus
6:3 is also the niphal. It would seem, therefore, that this form, when used, carried more than a
superficial knowledge of a thing. It conveyed the idea of knowledge as a result of revelation
experience.
Other examples of this idea may be found in Prov. 10:9, Ex. 32:12-17, I Sam. 3:7, Jer. 16:
21.
In this exegetical argument, the writer has endeavored to establish the following facts: First,
the name Yahweh is the Qal imperfect of the verb hayah and denotes the eternal, unchanging
character of God as evidenced by its use in Exodus 3:14. Second, the verb noda^i used in Ex-
odus 6:3 must mean more than being acquainted with a title as such. Third, the fact that the
niphal form is used in Exodus 6:3 strongly suggests knowledge in respect to revelation and exper-
ience. Fourth, the idiom " to know Yahweh" or "to know the name of Yahweh" as it is used in
the Old Testament, generally signifies knowledge of some particular act or attribute of Yahweh
as it is revealed in His dealing with men.
2. Theological Argument: The writer considers Exodus 6:3 to be a positive declaration of the
fact that in the past the character of God has been revealed in His names, El-Shaddai, Elohim
and Yahweh. But now He is going to reveal Himself further as Yahweh in a special way through
revelation and the experience of deliverance. He is going to provide a demonstration of the fact
that He is not only Yahweh who made a covenant with Abraham but is Yahweh who is faithful in
keeping it. New aspects of His glory, majesty and redemption are to be known by Israel. The
great redemptive power of Yahweh was now going to be known in various aspects as it had not
been known before. The deliverance from Egyptian bondage is often referred to as the great il-
lustration of this redemptive power in both the Old and New Testaments.
The following arguments are presented in support of this view: First, it is clear from Exodus
chapter three that the name "Yahweh" was well established in the minds of the Israelites, for if
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 41
this were not the case, why would God tell Moses to tell the people of Israel if they should ask
in whose name he comes, that "I am hath sent me unto you" (Ex. 3:14) or "Yahweh, the God of
your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you..." Did it not occur to either Moses or the Lord that the people might say, "Who is Yahweh?"
But there is no problem in this respect. The silence of the Scriptures speak clearly to the fact that
no such problem would arise because they know the name of the God of their fathers.
Second, the simple reading of Exodus 6:3 supports the view that a new revelation is meant,
not that the name was not known. The text literally reads:
"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob as (or in the capacity of) El-
Shaddai but (in the capacity of) my name Yahweh, I was not known to them."
It should be remembered that the verb for "known" is noda t? a niphal perfect, first person singu-
lar of the verb yadac ("to know"). If the text meant to say that the name, as such, was not
known, the third person singular would have been employed. It was in "the capacity of the
name Yahweh that He was to further reveal Himself,
Third, Exodus 6:3 is not a contrast between the use of Divine names. The name Elohim is not
even mentioned in this verse. The text is a comparison of ideas which the names represent. It is
a comparison between what has been revealed by Yahweh and what is about to be revealed. The
character of Yahweh that is considered in the text as it relates to His name.
Fourth, it can be shown that the use of Divine names in the Pentateuch, in most cases at
least, is obviously deliberate. For example it may be generally noted that when the power, maj-
esty and faithfulness of God are in view Elohim is generally used. (Gen. 1, 6-9, etc.) But when
the writer is writing in respect to salvation and the covenant relationship of God with Israel, Yah-
weh is generally used (Gen. 3:9-15, 4:1, 26, 8:20, etc.).20
Fifth, that the name Yahweh could have been known and used by the Patriarchs not knowing
its full significance and implications is proven possible from every day occurrences. It is possible
for a man to bear the name of a certain office before he fulfills any of its functions. President,
magistrate, and policeman are titles which may be borne by several persons to whom they legally
belong, before any of the acts peculiar to those offices are performed. The president as acknow-
leged on his inauguration is known to be such by his administrative acts, the magistrate by his ad-
ministration of justice and the policeman by the apprehending of criminals.
In the preceding arguments the writer has endeavored to show: 1 . That the reading of Exodus
6:3 clearly reveals that a special revelation in relation to the nature and character of Yahweh is
under consideration. 2. That Exodus 6:3 is not a contrast between the use or occurrence of Di-
vine names but a comparison of the ideas which El-Shaddai and Yahweh represent. 3. That the
use of Divine names in the Pentateuch is in most cases deliberate. 4. That the name of Yahweh
has a peculiar redemptive significance in the Pentateuch and is generally used in this sense. 5.
That practical experience indicates the possibility of knowing a name or title without having a
complete knowledge of all the functions and attributes of that title.
42 GRACE JOURNAL
3. Contextual. Argument: The contextual argument simply consists of an examination of the
immediate context to see if the interpretation suggested by the writer fits in logically and natu-
rally.
It should be observed, first of all, that the children of Israel are, in this book, at a very u-
nique stage of their history. From the moment of their departure, they will be recognized as a
nation in the true sense of the term. It is in this capacity, i.e. as a nation, that Yahweh is going
to deal with them. It is Yahweh's intention to reveal Himself as He had never done so before.
This covenant-making God was about to demonstrate both His power and faithfulness in the re-
demption of Israel (cf. Ex. 3:8-12, 15-22). In the immediate context of Exodus 6:3 we find the
sense in which Yahweh was to reveal Himself to Israel. Exodus 6:4 restates the covenant made
with Israel. Verses six to eight presents the plan of Yahweh for the nation of Israel. Verse six
clearly promises redemption from bondage. Verse seven states Yahweh's purpose in His redeeming
the children of Israel. This verse is very important in our consideration for it clearly explains the
latter phrase of Exodus 6:3. We have already suggested that there was a particular sense in which
Yahweh had not revealed Himself to the children of Israel. That aspect, or part of revelation is
explained in this verse. Notice the reading of this verse:
"And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God; and ye shall know
that I am Yahweh your God, who brinaeth you out from under the burdens of the Egypt-
There are two basic assertions in this verse. First, Yahweh declares the election of the children
of Israel as a people for His name. Secondly, He states that they shall know Him, not for the
first time, but as the one "who bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians." This
means they would "know Yahweh as their redeemer and deliverer." The whole message of the
book of Exodus is centered around this theme (cf. Exodus 7:5, 17, 8:23, 10:3, 12:12-13, 14: Off,
15:2ff). This revelation and experience was a mountain peak in Israel's history. Whenever Israel
slips away from fellowship with Yahweh, as in Micah 6, Yahweh reminds them of this deliverance
from Egypt.
"For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed thee out of bondage..."
(Micah 6:4)
In the eighth verse of Exodus, chapter six, Yahweh restates His promise to Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob, and promises its fulfillment. The basis for this promise is "I am Yahweh."
It is the conclusion of the writer that the immediate context of Exodus 6:3 and the greater
context of the book reveal the fact that before this time, the children of Israel had not known
all that was involved in the covenant name "Yahweh." Only in these particular circumstances
could the truth of the redemptive power of Yahweh be revealed.
English Paraphrase
And I revealed myself unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob in the capacity of the God
Almighty, but in the full redemptive significance of my name Yahweh, I was not made known (re-
vealed) unto them.
THE PATRIARCHS' KNOWLEDGE OF JEHOVAH 43
DOCUMENTATION
1. Cf. Martin Noth. The History of Israel. (Harper & Brothers).
2. William F. Albright. From the Stone Age to Christianity. (The Johns Hopkins press) p. 180 ff.
3. BernhardW. Anderson. Understanding the Old Testament. (Prentice Hall Inc.) p. 23.
4. Gustave Friedrich Oehler. Theology of the Old Testament. (Zondervan Publishing House)
p. 90.
5. Edward Mack. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. (The Howard Severance Co.)
pp. 1266, 1267.
6. John Calvin. Commentaries on the Four Last Books of Moses. (Wm. B. Eerdnrtans Publishing
Co.) Vol. I, p. 126.
7. C.I. Scofield (Editor) The Scofield Reference Bible. (Oxford University Press) p. 26.
8. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles Briggs. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the. Old
Testament. (Houghton, Mifflin & Co.) pp. 906-907.
9. Ibid. p. 908.
10. William Gesenius. (Translated by Edward Robinson) A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. (Cocher and Brewster) p. 1036.
11. John Edgar Mc Fadyen. Introduction to the Old Testament. (Hodder and Stoughton) p. 22.
12. Karl Budde. Religion of Israel to the Exile. (G.P. Putnam's Sons) p. 19.
13. Henry Cowles. Butler's Bible-Work. (Funk & Wagnalls) p. 598.
14. Oswald T. Allis. The Five Books of Moses. (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.)
p. 28. Compare also: E.J. Young. An Introduction to the Old Testament. (Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co.) p. 136.
15. Gustave Friedrich Oehler. op_. cit. pp. 95, 96.
16. Edward Mack. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. P. 1266.
17. Kautzsch, E. (ed) Gesenius1 Hebrew Grammar. 2d. Eng. ed. of 28th Ger. ed„ Trans. A.E.
Conley. (Oxford: University Press)p. 313.
18. Exodus 6:7, 10:2, 14:4, 16:12, 29:46.
19. Cf. also Josh. 23:14, Isa. 9:8, Psa. 14:4, Ezek. 20:9, Hosea 9:7.
20. Oehler. op_. cit. Pp. 98, 99.
GENERAL REVIEW
Events Viewed in the Light of God's Word
HERMAN A. HOYT
President, Grace Theological Seminary
This is a period of peril in the history of the world. All civilization is being threatened.
Never before in its history has anything been known on such colossal proportions. It is impossible
to glance anywhere at the communications of men without recognizing that men are more or less
aware of the gigantic dimensions of this moving avalanche of destruction. Some word of comment
concerning world affairs appears in almost every telecast, broadcast, newspaper, magazine, ser-
mon, or address, religious or secular. Some comments aim at diagnosis, others at solution, and
yet others at removing the gloom and despair. But one cannot help but detect confusion in most
of them. Men are groping in darkness in their attempts to grasp the meaning of the total picture.
And this is just as true of men who stand high in position in the intellectual and political levels of
the world as it is of men who belong to the lesser known classes.
Arnold J. Toynbee, eminent British historian, in a recent volume from his pen, America and
the World Revolution and Other Lectures, comments on current world affairs. From the viewpoint
of a historian and prophet, he offers another and more complete analysis of the present discontents,
along with possible solutions, and prophetic forecasts. According to Toynbee, the American Re-
volution initiated a world movement for human rights. But now America is a counter-revolutionary
power hostile to revolution such as that demonstrated among Bolsheviks because Communism threat-
ens the wealth of this land. The place of idealism once occupied by the United States is now the
position of the Soviet Union. Forsaking materialism is the only way America can rejoin the noble
revolution she once spearheaded. When Mr. Toynbee dares to suggest that Judaism and Christi-
anity are the parent religion for Communism in its crusades for social justice it is apparent that he
too is confused theologically and historically.
With clear perception, Mr. Toynbee does predict the awful possibility of atomic genocide,
from which ultimate peril not even the Soviet Union, the United States of America, or Christianity
as it exists today can deliver us. Having eliminated the above sources for solution, this brilliant
historian and philosopher suggests that the last best hope lies in a new world-state such as those
that rescued past civilizations from destruction. He recognizes what others are seeing with equal
clarity that nuclear war may start "at any moment by accident, miscalculation, or madness" as de-
clared by President Kennedy to the United Nations in 1961, and dramatized by the recent Cuban
crisis. For this reason every effort should be expended to discover the architect of a new world-
state. Whatever the origin of this new Augustus or Liu P'ang, and he may well be a Hindu or
Buddhist from a neutral Asiatic nation, the nations should be ready to submit to his dictates, how-
ever distasteful, when he appears.
The hopes and fears of Mr. Toynbee are familiar to the student of Biblical prophecy. Nor are
these ideas necessarily original with him. He is merely formulating verbally the vague and indis-
tinct ideas of men who imagine that hope is to be found on the purely human and earthly level.
In fact, the solution proposed by Mr. Toynbee is the fruit of the pattern of thinking now moving to
high tide in intellectual circles and which will eventually permeate the thinking of the peoples of
the earth. In substance it is this, namely, the exaltation of humanism and the exclusion of deity
44
GENERAL REVIEW 45
in the thinking of men. The exclusion of the supernatural in their thinking leaves men with the level
of the natural as the sum total of reality. Within this realm there must be varying degrees from
the lowest to the highest, and this last will eventually be crowned with sovereignty and declared
to be deity. It is this last to which Mr. Toynbee is making reference and is known to students of
predictive prophecy as the final world empire ruled by the Antichrist of the endtime.
The world is moving swiftly toward the ushering in of one final world empire. This was pre-
dicted in Daniel (2, 7) and repeated in Revelation (13). Through the centuries there have been
tokens. The thinking of men moved in this direction at Babel (Gen. 11:1-11). The march of em-
pire from Babylon to Rome is over this pattern. Rome, the final world empire, has continued in
some form through the centuries of the Christian era. The alliances, world court, disarmament
conferences, League of Nations, and now the United Nations are all over this pattern of thinking,
that at last the one satisfactory solution to the problems of the multiplicity of nations is a United
Nations of the World, one great empire embracing all mankind. The peril of this plan lies in the
fact that it is supposed by men that this can be accomplished alone by unaided and sinful human-
ity. It is being declared that "it is technologically possible for humanity to build a world of se-
curity, plenty, and justice. It is such a world that wise and well-governed states must seek; and
this is the central task of the United Nations." But another observes that "we live in an imper-
fect world perfectly equipped for self-destruction, and the United Nations is an imperfect instru-
ment in protecting us from this." Still another agrees that "we are almost certainly heading for a
series of international crises, and one of which can be worse than the one before it. We must
school our nerves and hearts for whatever is to come. We must prepare ourselves to live with deep
trouble, and to live with frustration, and to live with despair. If we do that well enough, we
cannot be defeated finally."
All of this adds up to one thing, namely, the determination of men to face the future with all
of its horrors in the energy of the flesh and on the earthly level. This means that there will even-
tually be a United Nations of the World which will embrace all mankind, and it will be the ful-
fillment of the prophecies of the Bible. As suggested by Toynbee, the architect of this superstate
will be a great man, a Caesar of the endtime with stature that will command the admiration and
allegiance of mankind. The Bible declares he will be a man of peace and religion riding into
prominence on a white horse (Rev. 6:1-2). He will also be a military genius, defying even death
itself (Rev. 13:3-4). He shall be a man of high intelligence, great learning, a philosopher, and
a statesman (Dan. 7:8; 8:23-25). But in addition to all this, he shall be a proud man (Dan. 8:25),
who exalts himself above God and all that is called God (2 Thess. 2:3-4), and at last offers him-
self to Satan as his man (Rev. 13:1-2).
There is no doubt what the response of the millions of mankind will be. They will welcome
him. They will submit to him. They will worship him (Rev. 13:3-4). Under his leadership the
superstate will have been realized, and under the power of a strong delusion the multitudes will
become the dupes of this despot (2Thess. 2:11). But it will all be one great falsification of gran-
deur. At that moment, when all mankind is united in one empire under one supreme emperor, and
at last the Utopian dreams of humanity appear to have been realized, the fruit of his reign will
appear. Universal war will spread across the world (Rev. 6:3-4); famine will take its deadly toll
(Rev. 6:5-6); and death from multiple sources will follow swiftly (Rev. 6:7-8). His reign will end
46 GENERAL REVIEW
in a holocaust of war such as the world has never known (Rev. 16:12-16; 19: 19-21), bringing this
final empire to a swift and dreadful termination (Rev. 18). This is the sincere but unknowing pro-
posal of Mr. Toynbee and thousands like him.
The genuine fulfillment of the dreams of men will come, but not in the way nor direction be-
ing proposed. The architect of this final and everlasting kingdom is the King of Kings and the
Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16). With catastrophic demonstration "shall the God of heaven set up a
kingdom which shall never be destroyed" (Dan. 2:44). Like a stone cut out of a mountain without
hands, shall it fall upon the united kingdoms of sinful men in this last fateful hour and destroy
them, and this stone shall become a great mountain and fill the whole earth (Dan. 2:34-35, 45) .
Then "the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him," and "shall...
sit upon the throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all nations" (Matt. 25:31-32).
BOOK REVIEWS
VAN TIL. By Rousas J. Rushdoony. Modern
Thinkers Series. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1960. 51 pp., $1.25.
The author, who is pastor of the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church of Santa Cruz, California,
draws much of his material from a book of his en-
titled By What Standard, an analysis of the phil-
osophy of Cornelius Van Til. He includes a good
bibliography of the various writings of Van Til.
He begins by showing that modern philosophy
is actuallya flight from reality. The current phil-
osophical demand is for rootlessness, subjectivity,
and relativism. "Reality" is very limited if per-
mitted at all. The standard practice is to ignore
orthodox Christianity. The last of the 19th century
and the beginning of the 20th saw the Reformation
principles restored to philosophy in the person of
Abraham Kuyper. In his tradition today the two
central figures in Europe are Vollenhoven and
Dooyeweerd, and in America, Van Til.
The author likens Van Til and his impact on
philosophy to the old tale of "The Emperor's
Clothes." Autonomous man has long been the
emperor in every avenue of human thought. In the
realms of philosophy and apologetics many see an
area of knowledge that can be comprehended by
the consistent natural man; an area of "neutral
facts" which are available to God and man and
which derive meaning from themselves. In the
light of the biblical doctrines of total depravity,
the self-contained Trinity, etc., Van Til insists
that man cannot know anything apart from God;
that every fact is a God-created and God-inter-
preted fact that can be known only as we think
God's thoughts after Him. The emperor has no
clothes. The natural man thus can have no valid
knowledge of his own and what he has is borrowed
from Christian theism. He isepistemologically
naked.
In some systems the autonomy of theoretical
thought is assumed for apologetic purposes. Ac-
cording to Van Til this cannot be done because
natural man is not able to judge reality nor is he
impartial and neutral concerning the God whom,
because of depravity, he despises. For Van Til
there is no factuality or meaning apart from God.
Therefore only theistic facts are possible and we
must reason from God to God-given and God-inter-
preted facts. This is impossible for the autonomous
mind.
The history of philosophy is briefly reviewed
and criticized. The author contends that Van Til
is one contemporary thinker, as perhaps no other,
who is well known and little read. He concludes
with the observation that "because Van Til brings
to such clear focus the issues between Christian-
theism and anti-theism, his philosophy constitutes
a stone of stumbling and rock of offense., .to those
whose philosophic concern is to break down the of-
fense of Christianity to the natural man."
ROLLANDMcCUNE
Winona Lake, Indiana
THE BIBLE COLLEGE STORY: EDUCATION WITH
DIMENSION. By S. A. Witmer. Channel Press,
Inc., Manhasset, New York, 1962. 253pp.,
$3.75.
Although there are now 250 Bible colleges in
North America with a total of over 25,000 students,
this is the first volume to authoritatively tell 'The
Bible Col lege Story." The work is a smoothly writ-
ten, thorough analysis of the history, present situa-
tion, and future of the Bible Institute-College
movement.
The author, as executive secretary of the Ac-
crediting Association of Bible Col leges, has a com-
petent knowledge of the issues with which the book
deals. He deals fairly with the problems as well as
the glories of the schools about which he writes.
As a former Bible college president holding the
Ph. D. degree in education and psychology, Dr.
Witmer speaks as an expert on the subject of Christ-
ian higher education.
47
48
GRACE JOURNAL
The incisive style of the book offers better
than average reading for the student, pastor,
teacher, layman, and others who should be aware
of the existence and purpose of these schools.
Several of the chapters deal with matters relevant
to any aspect of Christian higher education as
well as Bible colleges. The chapter on "Biblio-
centric Education," for example, lucidly presents
the case for the basis of all truly evangelical ed-
ucation— the Word of God. The chapters on
"Field Work: Service in Training" and "Teaching
the Bible" contain extremely important consider-
ations for all those who are interested in the work
of Christian colleges and seminaries. There are
ten tables in the book presenting various statistic-
al data relative to the subject. The list of "Bible
Institutes and Bible Colleges of the United States
and Canada" is probably the most exhaustive com-
pilation of its kind to be found anywhere.
Education with Dimension fills a long standing
need in evangelical literature by informing the
world of the import of Bible education in the
twentieth century.
KENNETH O. GANGEL
Calvary Bible College
PENTECOST AND MISSIONS. By Harry R. Boer.
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids,
1961. 270 pp., $5.00.
This book appeared originally in 1955 as a
doctoral dissertation under the extended title
Pentecost and th e Missionary Witness of the
Church, written for the Department of Missions of
the Free University of Amsterdam. In its present
form it has been altered somewhat to give it a
more popular appeal .
The burden of the book is to present the signi-
ficance of Pentecost in relation to the missionary
enterprise. The writer was impressed with the
seeming lack of attention given to this aspect of
missionary endeavor by authors of treatises on
missions. He claims that the experience of Pent-
ecost has often been studied in relation to "speak-
ing with other tongues." It has been considered
in its connection with the birth of the church and
the salvation of men but for some reason the Acts
2 event has not been given the consideration it
deserves in relation to the missionary witness of
the church. Dr. Boer seeks to address himself to
this emphasis in his book.
In the course of the volume he endeavors to
show that it is not the Great Commission that gives
motive power to missionary endeavor. The latter
derives its power and meaning wholly and exclu-
sively from the outpouring of Pentecost. This is
not to devaluate the importance of the Great Com-
mission. It has played a powerful role in the mis-
sionary witness of the church from the day of Pent-
ecost to the present. But it took the effusion of
Pentecost to make it effective. It alone gave the
dynamic to impel the church to obey it. Dr. Bo-
er's basic argument is that the Holy Spirit is the
Spirit of life, of witness, of power, of unity, and
of love and thus without Him proper motivation is
impossible.
Dr. Boer, himself a missionary of the Christ-
ian Reformed Church of the United States in
Northern Nigeria, has made extensive use of
Scripture to establish his viewpoint. His work is
an earnest endeavor to emphasize the importance
of recognizing the work of the Holy Spirit in all
missionary endeavor. As such the work deserves
careful consideration.
Some who read the book, including the writer
of this review, will doubtless take issue with or
question some of the viewpoints of the author,
such as his ideas on family salvation (Chapter 8,
pp. 164-185), the matter of ecumenicity (Chapter
9), and some of h i s eschatological viewpoints.
But by the exercise of discrimination the reader
may derive much blessing by reading this book.
HOMER A. KENT, SR.
Grace Theological Seminary
r
GRACE
JOURNAL
A PUBLICATION OF GRACE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Winona Lake, Indiana
I
SPRING 1963
Vol. 4
No. 2
GRACE JOURNAL
A publication of Grace Theological Seminary
VOLUME 4 SPRING, 1963 NUMBER 2
CONTENTS
THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL HISTORY William R. Foster 3
BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY Henry M. Morris 9
THE LOGOS CONCEPT Edgar J. Lovelady 15
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING
THE ANTICHRIST Herman A. Hoyt 25
BOOK REVIEWS 35
BOOKS RECEIVED 47
GRACE JOURNAL is published three times each year (Winter, Spring, Fall) by Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake,
Indiana.
EDITORIAL POLICY: The editors of GRACE JOURNAL hold the historic Christian faith, and accept without reservation the
inerrancy of Scripture and the premillennial view of eschatology. A more complete expression of their theological position may
be found in the Statement of Faith of Grace Theological Seminary. The editors, however, do not necessarily endorse every
opinion that may be expressed by individual writers in the JOURNAL.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per calendar year; single copy, 75c.
ADDRESS: All subscriptions and review copies of books should be sent to GRACE JOURNAL, Box 397, Winona Lake, Indiana.
Copyright, 1963, by Grace Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL STAFF
HOMER A. KENT, JR. JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR.
Editor Managing Editor
HERMAN A. HOYT S. HERBERT BESS
General Review Editor Book Review Editor
JAMES L. BOYER ALVA J. McCLAIN
E. WILLIAM MALE HOMER A. KENT, SR.
KENNETH G. MOELLER JOHN REA
Business Committee Consulting Editors
THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL HISTORY
WILLIAM R. FOSTER
Dean of Faculty
London College of Bible and Missions
The study of history as an intellectual discipline requires far more than a mere assembling of
facts. The interpretation of history must be recognized as a legitimate and necessary aspect of the
historian's task since facts in themselves have no abiding value apart from the consideration of
their causes and consequences. Nor would it be possible for a historian to collect all the facts of
history — a circumstance which demands a guide to the selection of the facts deemed significant.
"A failure or refusal to acknowledge and deal explicitly with its philosophical implications really
means that a philosophy functions surreptitiously, and that it is likely to be only by a happy ac-
cident adequate and relevant to the facts of history." ' In the consideration of the Biblical record
as history two distinct areas must be investigated. In the first place, the question of the relation
of the recorded events to the actual facts of history must be considered. Are we dealing in the
Scriptures with legendary story (saga), or do the recorded events actually take place in history?
In the second place, the pattern of these Biblical events must be discovered since it is clearly
evident thatthe authors of the Bible didnot include all the historical details which were available
(John 21:25). In the past centuries especially since the Reformation the Scriptures have been sub-
jected to critical attack centering upon the question of their historicity.
The Older Form of Literary Criticism
The course of criticism has not always run in the same channels, and, therefore, cannot be ex-
plained by general covering statements. The past thirty years have witnessed a most striking re-
versal of critical opinion from that which reached its climax toward the close of the last century.
The roots of this older form of criticism may be traced backward to the rationalism of the 18th cen-
tury. Voltaire and Condorcet argued that "history was the story of man's progress from ignorance
and superstition to the clear day of rationality through which he would eventually reach perfec-
tion."^ The development of scientific historiography in the following century produced a confi-
dence "in the efficacy of the new historical method to discover the truth of history, and so the
meaning of history itself." 3 The development of the evolutionary concept in the same century was
regarded as providing the capstone of fully scientific naturalistic humanism. "Divine intervention
...was declared to be impossible, because of history's very nature. The divine would only enter
in at the end, and would then turn out to be man himself."^
Naturalistic humanism exercised a large measure of control over the spirit, method, and con-
clusions of religious scholars who delighted to be known for their "open-minded investigation of
the facts, without any prior assumptions or commitments. "5 Theological liberalism could not be
completely naturalistic or fully humanistic, and maintain its connection with theology. This ten-
sion was overcome by the religious philosophy of Schleiermacher who propounded the doctrine of
divine immanence which made man akin to the infinite and impersonal World-Spirit. In its fullest
development of the humanistic doctrine of man theological liberalism "advocated a romantically
light view of his sinfulness. . .represented him as the highest evolutionary achievement of an im-
manent divine principle. . .enthusiastically pictured him as on the verge of realizing, by his own
4 GRACE JOURNAL
efforts, an idealistic program of social amelioration, which was identified with the kingdom of
God. . .insisted that he had only recently evolved by natural processes from a purely animal
stage."0 This composite of ideas established the atmosphere of rosy optimism which provided the
theological climate of the beginning of the twentieth century.
The critical study of the 19th century subjected the Scriptures to the same foundational prin-
ciples which had given rise to theological liberalism. Rationalism could not remain satisfied until
the supernatural elements in the history and religion had been reduced to the level of the natural
world. Ingenious explanations of the Biblical miracles were attempted, or reduced as did Harnack
"to the misconceived and unexplained." Historians adopted the scientific method in order to re-
fashion history as a science, and began the labor of sifting the facts of the past in order to find
out, as Leopold von Ranke stated, "how it actually happened,," The result in the realm of Biblical
studies was the fostering of a skeptical attitude toward the historicity of Biblical events. Their
error was not so much in their method as in the hasty and unjustified conclusions which were drawn
from their investigations. The evolutionary hypothesis became the foundational philosophical
principle to establish the meaning of history. This resulted in a drastic rearrangement of the struc-
ture of Scripture to support the developmental hypothesis. "The course of man's development in the
realm of religion. ..began with the tribal god and primitive faith of early Israel, its culmination
in the teachings of Jesus."' The rejection of doctrine as relevant to the religious life was inher-
ited from Schleiermacher, and was directed toward the undermining of the orthodox Biblical teach-
ings. Doctrinal foundations disappeared because they were regarded as divisive and antagonistic
to the well-integrated religious life.
This form of criticism did not adequately deal with the problem of history, and began to break
down as a system shortly after the beginning of the 20th century. Its skepticism concerning the
historicity of Biblical events involved a basic disagreement with the Christian Lord and Master
(Matt. 12:39-42), with the historian Luke (Luke 1:1-4), with the apologist Stephen (Acts 7:2-50),
and with the missionary Paul (Acts 13:16-39). This disagreement became more uncomfortable when
the developing science of archaeology began to show that Biblical history is far more reliable than
any of the critics had ever expected. Archaeology has "in general supported the position of those
who regard the Bible as trustworthy."" Criticism's most disastrous error was uncovered in its attempt
to make the interpretive principle regulate the historical facts of the Biblical record rather than
to allow the pattern of interpretation to be derived from the facts contained in the Scriptures.
"Straight-line evolution was a framework imposed on the Bible from without, and it has proved far
too rigid to accommodate the data."" The idea of automatic progress has become doubtful due to
the shattering of liberal optimism by two world wars in one generation. One contemporary expon-
ent of liberalism now admits that "a thousand years from now our descendants will be facing diffi-
cult times, some of their problems being new and others being the same old problems that plague
us today, because they will share inevitably in the perennial human predicament." '^ The very
nature of history is now being called into question in order to discover some philosophy of history
which will more adequately explain the course of events. History is a mystery, and "the cosmos
is more mysterious today than ever it was." ' The older form of criticism has no solution to this
mystery, and its once confident interpretation of history is being more and more recognized as
totally inadequate. In a system where chance is the only ultimate principle of evolution, history
can hardly be expected to have any pattern of purpose.
THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 5
The Newer Form of Higher Criticism
The attitude of criticism has greatly changed in the past three decades as the older critical
views toppled more and more into discard. The doctrine of human perfectibility is no longer so
confidently held. The stress upon man's ability must be replaced by an emphasis upon the grace
of God. One historian decries the naivete of those who conceive of man as an evolving and per-
fectible creature by asserting that "it is essential not to have faith in human nature. Such faith is
a recent heresy and a very disastrous one." '^ The evil potential in man is now more candidly re-
cognized, and so an emphasis upon the sinfulness of man is replacing the rosy optimism of yester-
year. There is a growing sense of the inadequacy "of any explanation which attempts to interpret
history, simply from history. History may be known only by One who is beyond its movement." Ivi
Therefore, God is being understood more in the sense of His transcendence than His immanence .
Revelation is replacing reason as the means by which man understands the significance of history
and existence. Older liberalism had its hope in a Utopia which involved a perfect social order
which man would build upon the earth. Now contemporary representatives of liberalism believe
that "every hope for the establishment of God's kingdom within history is incomplete and imper-
fect." '4 The kingdom of God is presented as an eschatological concept, not as that which will
take place at the end of history, but as that which lies beyond history. "The meaning in history
lies always in the present, and when. . .conceived as the eschatological present by Christian faith
the meaning in history is realized."^ The meaning of history comes from beyond history through
the revelational encounter with God in which the events of the contemporary world take on new
meaning and significance. Since the Scriptures "mirror the experienced history of Israel" '", the
narratives contained therein portray "the deepest dimensions of Israel's history — her encounter
with Yahweh in the political and cultural crisis of the time." The new emphasis in Biblical
studies is now directed toward the discovery of the underlying themes and concepts which con-
stituted Israel's religious heritage, rather than toward the atomizing of Israel's religious documents
into fragmentary sources, and the piecing of the sources into a presupposed evolutionary pattern.
Contemporary criticism has designated the two components of historical study by two German
words which are in non-technical usage normally synonymous. The assured or established facts of
history fall within the realm of historie which technically refers to a historical event occurring at
a certain place, and on a certain day which can be historically verified by competent investi-
gators. Geschichte refers to the supra-temporal or supra-historical realm, "the realm of faith or
...the realm of redemption."'" Critics usually avoid a flat negative answer to historical questions
concerning the mighty acts of God, but in reality assume that the Biblical records do not fall in
the area of historie but of geschichte. Geschichte involves the realm of meaning since in the
common experiences of the Israelites they saw the hand of God in the events of their history. The
Exodus was only a political event, the liberation of a band of slaves from Pharoah's yoke. Exter-
nally this event had no uniqueness since it may be compared with similar events in the lives of
other people. However, with the eyes of faith these Israelite slaves saw in this event the presence
of God in redemption. In the Exodus, historie would relate only to the liberation of slaves from
the Pharoah's yoke, whereas geschichte would refer to the perception in these historical experi-
ences of "a divine dimension of meaning of which the general public was unaware." ■" The same
author asserts that "no external historical study can demonstrate that the Exodus was an act of
God. "20 Tne Exodus account does not purport to be "objective history," but is rather to be under-
6 GRACE JOURNAL
stood as "an interpretive account of events. . .an interpretation of faith. . .a meaningful happening
in the life of a people." The heart of the whole matter has been given by Wright in his defin-
ition of Biblical Theology as "a theology of recital or proclamation of the acts of God, together
with the inferences drawn therefrom."" These new views have fundamentally altered the course
of critical opinions, but this mid-twentieth century interpretation of history does not constitute an
orthodox or even valid understanding of the meaning of history.
The new criticism is open to two basic disagreements as it pertains to the orthodox understand-
ing of history. In the first place, the actual facts of history seem to have no valid connection with
the interpretation of history. Although the critics protest that Israel's faith is radically historical,
this does not necessitate a close integration of fact and interpretation. The actual historical event
is of no real importance, and is not under any circumstance to be regarded as unique or as ac-
complished by supernatural power. The revelation of divine activity is not to be found in the
event on the plane of historie, but in the revelational encounter in the realm of geschichte. The
cause and the consequence of the Exodus are in historie, the whim of Pharoah and the liberty of
the slaves; in geschichte, the power of God and the redemption of His people. This is a historical
dualism which is contrary to the orthodox understanding of history. "If it is not too important
whether or not the particular events happened as recorded, then the uniqueness predicated of them
can hardly be what our fathers in the faith have meant by the uniqueness of redemptive history."^
In the second place, the interpretation of these events depends upon "the inferences drawn
therefrom", and the ability of persons "who perceived in the events a divine dimension of mean-
ing. "■" In the events of the Exodus the Israelites presumed to see the hand of God, and in their
explanation of the meaning of the events to themselves they inferred that God had been present
with them, and had brought them out of Egyptian bondage. As Edward J. Young argues so con-
clusively, "the all-important question is this, Was Israel's inference true to fact or was it not."^°
Does this imply that human inference is a valid means for the discovery of truth, or may human
inference sometimes be a mistaken inference? The critic would answer that "God gives evidence
of his presence and redemptive purpose, but in an ambiguous V/ay that demands faith and trust. ""
However, this answer only intensifies the problem, since the possibility of a mistaken inference is
now joined to an ambiguous revelational encounter, and the possibilities inherent in this combin-
ation leave the critic exactly where his older predecessor arrived — with no certain interpretation
of history. Perhaps this is the reason why some moderns are willing to make the basic assumption
that "we cannot know if there is a plan for history, nor even if there is, whether it can ever be
realized. "2° Thus, modern criticism has no solution to the historical problem of the Bible since it
cannot discover the facts underlying the record nor establish an interpretation which is certain.
The Orthodox Alternative to Critical Theories
To the orthodox Christian the Biblical record is founded squarely upon certain things that God
did in history through the entrance of the supernatural into the affairs of men. The historicity of
the Biblical record is the only position which is in harmony with the understanding of the apostolic
church and the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself who unequivocally spoke of the great events of
the Old Testament history as actual happenings (Matt. 11:21-24, 12:1-5, 12:39-42, 23:35). This
position has been followed by orthodox theologians through the succeeding centuries so that an
orthodox scholar of a preceding generation could state that "the centre and core of all the Bible
THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL HISTORY 7
is history.' The general providential working of God in all the events of history is indeed a
blessed reality (Eph. 1:11), but this is not precisely the sense in which the orthodox theologians
assert that God was active in history. The Bible records the special and supernatural interventions
of God into the course of human history. The Exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt was not
a providential working of God, but an event which was supernatural ly accomplished, and in which
God was specially manifested. This activity of God was not common to all peoples, but special
to the one nation which He had chosen (Psa. 147:20). Through supernatural exhibitions of His
power in redemption and judgment God constituted the history of Israel to be unique as compared
to the history of all other nations. These supernatural manifestations were climaxed in the assum-
ing of an incarnate form in Jesus Christ, who being true God and true man, was crucified irr his-
tory, was resurrected after three days in the tomb, is ascended into heaven from which place He
shall physically return into the realm of human history.
Nor does the interpretation of these facts of history rest upon the human religious conscious-
ness, for the mighty acts of God in history are interpreted by certain divinely-prepared witnesses
who speak as directed by God and write as moved by God (2 Peter 1:21 ASV) . The Exodus is not
an experience common to all enslaved people, but a unique divine deliverance of a specially
chosen people at a particular time from a specific place. The Biblical record of the Exodus is a
divinely-inspired interpretation of the significance of the event given through the prophetic min-
istry of Moses. The historical events of the Exodus were revelatory of God's power, but such re-
velations cannot be properly understood unless it also be accompanied by a revelation in words.
The Israelite did indeed see the manifestations of God's glory and power, but they were not left to
draw their own inferences from these events. This interpretation of events does not come as "an
ambiguous revelational encounter," but as a clear unveiling to the chosen prophet of the precise
significance of the event. Supernatural ability is granted to the prophet to communicate accur-
ately the truth to his people, or to record the interpretation in a permanent form for future gener-
ations. The orthodox concept of revelation is the key to a satisfactory solution to the problem of
history. If God led the children of Israel out of Egypt, "we today can know that fact only if He
Himself has told us."^ Our understanding of the significance of redemptive history is not based
upon inference from events, but rests upon the certain truth revealed byOne who is beyond history,
who acts in history, and who sees the end of history from its beginning.
DOCUMENTATION
1. Andrew K . Rule, "Interpretation of History," 20th Century Encyclopaedia of Religious Know-
ledge. I, 515.
2. W. Stonford Reid, "Review of Current Religious Thought," Christionity Today, Feb. 3, 1958,
p. 40.
3. Loc. cit.
4. Loc. cit.
5. Andrew K . Rule, "Liberalism," 20th Century Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, II, 660.
6. Ibid. , p. 661 .
7. John Bright, The Kingdom of God, p. 9.
8. Edward J . Young, Old Testament Theology Today, p. 1 1 .
9. John Bright, op., cit., p. 10.
10. Elton Trueblood, Predicament of Modern Man, p. 7.
8 GRACE JOURNAL
11. Herbert Butterfield, Christianity and History, p. 118.
12. .Ibid., p. 47.
13. W. Stanford Reid, og. dt., p. 40.
14. Robert Paul Lightner, Neo-liberalism, pp. 85-86.
15. R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, p. 155.
16. BernhardW. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, p. 205.
17. Loc. cit.
18. Edward J. Young, op_. crt., p. 19.
19. BernhardW. Anderson, op_. at., p. 15.
20. Loc. cit.
21. Ibid., p. 14.
22. G. Ernest Wright, God Who Acts, p. 11.
23. Meredith G. Kline, Review of Bernhard W. Anderson, "Understanding the Old Testament,"
Westminster Theological Journal, May, 1959, p. 253.
24. G. Ernest Wright, op. cit., p. 11.
25. Bernhard Anderson, _op_. cit., p. 13.
26. Edward J. Young, op_. crt., p. 23.
27. Bernhard Anderson, op_. c_it., p. 44.
28. W. Stanford Reid, op_. dt., p. 40.
29. J. Gresham Machen, "History and Faith," The Princeton Theological Review, Vol. XIII,
July, 1915.
30. Edward J. Young, op. cit., p. 25.
BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY
HENRY M. MORRIS
Professor of Civil Engineering
Virginia Polytechnic Institute
Theories of catastrophism in geological interpretation are not new. Prior to the time of Sir
Charles Lyell, scientists generally believed that most geological formations must be attributed to
great physical catastrophes or revolutions. Lyell, however, taught that these phenomena could
be explained by the ordinary processes of nature, acting over vast expanses of geological time.
This is his "principle of uniformitarianism,"' now almost universally accepted as the foundation
principle of modern historical geology.
Profoundly influenced by Lyell's theories, Charles Darwin soon published his theory of evolu-
tion by natural selection. The supposed paleontological record of the evolutionary history of life
on earth, together with the principle of uniformity, now constitutes the interpretive framework
within which all data of historical geology are supposed to be explained. Furthermore, this phil-
osophy of evolutionary uniformitarianism now serves also as the interpretive framework in the
social sciences and economics, and even in the study of religion itself. Thus a superstructure of
gigantic size has been erected on the Lyellian-Darwinian foundation.
However, catastrophism is not dead. The inadequacies of a thorough-going uniformitarianism
have become increasingly obvious in recent years, and such quasi-catastrophist concepts as wan-
dering continents, shifting poles, slipping crusts, meteoritic and cometary collisions, etc., are
appearing more and more frequently in geological literature. It is, in fact, generally recognized
that even the ordinary fossiliferous deposits of the sedimentary rocks must often have at least a
semi-catastrophist basis, since the process of fossilization usually requires rather rapid burial,
under conditions seldom encountered in the modern world. Most geological processes of the pre-
sent seem to be non-catastrophic in nature, but catastrophes of some sort seem necessary to ex-
plain many of the earth's geological formations. Application of Occam's Razor (the principle
that the minimum number of hypotheses for possible explanation of phenomena should be employed)
suggests that just one or a few great catastrophes would be more reasonable as an explanation than
would be a great number of such events.
Biblical Catastrophism
The above considerations lead to the suggestion that a return to Biblical Catastrophism as the
interpretive framework for historical geology is well worth considering at this time. Modern
This paper was presented at the monthly meeting of the Houston Geological Society, Houston,
Texas, on September 10, 1962.
10 GRACE JOURNAL
studies in Biblical archaeology have demonstrated that the Bible is amazingly reliable in its his-
torical sections, despite over a hundred years of propaganda to the contrary. Pious veneration of
the Bible for its "spiritual values" is hardly consistent with a rejection of its scientific and histor-
ical teachings, for if the latter cannot be trusted — that is, statements which are susceptible to
actual human investigation and proof--then how can its "spiritual" teachings, which are not sus-
ceptible of proof, be trusted?
And the Bible does have a great deal to say about the early history of the earth and the uni-
verse, not only in the book of Genesis, but throughout both Old and New Testaments. If the
Bible is actually what its writers univocally claim it to be — and what Jesus Christ and His apostles
accepted and taught it to be — then it is really and truly the inspired Word of God, and its teach-
ings concerning Creation and other events of early history are not legends but actual facts of his-
tory. If one simply assumes this as an act of faith, and makes his deductions on that basis, he soon
finds that the Bible presents a perfectly consistent and harmonious account of earth history, with
which it is possible to harmonize all the data of historical geology, as well as pertinent data in
other fields.
The objection that such a presupposition will necessarily color the conclusions derived from it
is, of course, valid. On the other hand, it should be recognized that evolutionary interpretations
also are derived from definite presuppositions. It is nothing but pure assumption that makes a man
suppose he must interpret all data within a naturalistic, uniformitarian mold. Therefore, it is not
only legitimate but also highly important that the inferences based on the Biblical presuppositions
also be seriously considered and evaluated.
The Biblical Framework
The major elements of the Biblical framework, within which all data should be organized, are
three great recorded facts of history. These events are: (1) the Creation; (2) the Fall; and (3)
the Flood.
The fact of real Creation, out of nothing, is fundamental to any form of theism and especially
to Christian theism. For if anything at all has really been "created," that substance must have
been created with an "appearance of age." On the assumption of uniformity, on the other hand,
it would always be possible to imagine some sort of evolutionary history for even the simplest cre-
ated substance. Denial of the possibility of the creation of "apparent age" amounts to denial of
the possibility of any genuine creation and thus is essentially atheism.
Another intensely significant fact concerning Creation is that it was accomplished by processes
no longer in operation. According to the Bible, all things were created in six days, following
which "God ended his work which he had made" (Gen. 2:2) „ The Sabbath was then instituted in
commemoration of God's completed work of Creation. Therefore the physical processes which we
can now study belong to an entirely different order of things and can give us no clue whatever to
the history of the Creation period; this latter history can only be known through divine revelation.
This conclusion is strongly confirmed scientifically by the law of energy conservation, the
first law of thermodynamics. This is the most firmly established of all scientific laws and is really
BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY 11
the basic principle upon which all modern science is really grounded. Energy, in the fullest sense,
includes everything in the physical and biological universe, and this law essentially affirms that
no creation of energy is now taking place. Such creation must therefore have been an event of
the past, and this is exactly what Scripture teaches.
To some extent, therefore, the whole world was created at some time in the past, by processes
unknown to us, with an "appearance of age." This fact must be given full consideration in the
construction of a geological history or the use of a geological chronometer. For instance, the
primeval ocean may already have been saline, radioactive minerals may already have contained
daughter elements, light from distant stars may have been visible on the earth at the instant of
their creation, and so on, even as Adam was created as a full-grown man.
The second basic fact around which historical data must be organized is that of the Curse. Ac-
cording to the revelation given by God, the original Creation was, in every respect, "very good"
(Gen. 1:31). There was nothing out of balance, no disharmony, no suffering, no struggle and,
above all, no death in the world. According to the Apostle Paul, "by man came death" (I Cor.
15:21). When man sinned, God pronounced a Curse, not only on man but also on his whole domin-
ion, the earth and everything in it. This Curse primarily involves the principle of decay and
death. The "whole creation" is now in the "bondage of corruption" (that is, "decay"), according
to Romans 8:21-22. There is, everywhere, a natural tendency toward disintegration and ultimate
death.
This Biblical doctrine is, of course, firmly supported by the second law of thermodynamics.
This law which, like the first law, is as strongly proved as any fact of science, states that, in any
closed system, there is a natural increase of disorder and disorganization. The energy (or infor-
mation, or order) of the system tends to become less available or useful or organized. Everything
tends to wear out, to grow old, to run down, and finally to approach a state of death. Obviously
this law flatly contradicts the notion of evolution, which assumes that everything naturally tends
to become more orderly and highly organized.
But the most significant of these facts, from the standpoint of historical geology, is that there
could have been no suffering or struggle or death in the world until after man had sinned. Con-
sequently, the fossils of all formerly living animals now found in the earth's sedimentary rocks
must be dated subsequently to this event, the Fall of Man.
This leads to the third basic fact in the Biblical framework. If the great thickness of fossil-
bearing strata have been deposited only after man's fall, then nothing less than catastrophic de-
position can possibly account for most of them. The Bible clearly describes this Catastrophe, and
we now know it as the Genesis Flood or as the Great Deluge in the days of Noah.
According to the record, it was because of the utterly and hopelessly wicked condition into
which the earth's original peoples had degenerated that God sent a cataclysmic Deluge to "destroy
man with the earth" (Gen. 6:13). This event is described in detail in Genesis 6 through 9 and is
referred to many times in other parts of the Bible and by Jesus Christ Himself. It is also recorded,
in more or less incomplete and distorted fashion, in the legends of hundreds of peoples all over the
world.
12 GRACE JOURNAL
According to the Apostle Peter, "the world that then was, being overflowed with water, per-
ished" (II Peter 3:6). As described in the Bible, the flood-water covered the entire globe for a
year and was immensely destructive in effect. All of the processes of sedimentation, volcanism,
teclonism, fossilization, etc., were extremely active during this period. No true scheme of his-
torical geology could possibly be erected without full consideration of the tremendous geologic
records that must necessarily have been inscribed in the earth's crust by this event.
Geologic Implications
Acceptance of this Biblical framework of interpretation would have very little effect on the
organization and use of the vast bulk of accumulated geologic data and methodology. The dis-
ciplines of mineralogy, petrology, hydrology, structural geology, petroleum geology, economic
geology, etc., would be very little affected, in any practical way, by the problem of whether the
data of historical geology should be organized in terms of evolutionary uniformitarianism or in
terms of Biblical Creationism and Catastrophism.
There are essentially onlytwo significant points where changes in interpretation would be nec-
essitated, but these are quite important. In the first place, the principle of uniformity must be
modified sufficiently ro accommodate the three great discontinuities of Creation, the Fall, and the
Flood. In the second place, the theory of evolution must be abandoned. Although these two con-
cepts are pure hypotheses, which have never been verified, they of course have the status of Sac-
red Cows, and one can question their universal validity only at the risk of being charged with
medieval ignorance and prejudice. Nevertheless, their validity has never been demonstrated and
they are simply accepted asArticles of Faith. In fact, there is an abundance of scientific evidence
that they are not valid. Rather than being hindered by their rejection, it is very likely that his-
torical geology would be greatly benefited by release from their shackles.
With reference to uniformity, it has already been noted that this principle has proved inade-
quate in numerous areas, so that a quasi-catastrophism is already quite prominentin geologic in-
terpretation. There are many very important unsolved problems in geology and it is likely that
their solution has been delayed by an implicit reliance on uniformity. Typical of these important
unsolved problems are: (1) the cause of mountain-building; (2) the origin of geosynclines; (3)
the origin of petroleum; (4) the cause of continental glaciation; (5) the mechanics of overthrow-
ing; (6) the cause of peneplains; (7) the cause of world-wide warm climates; (8) the nature of
volcanism productive of vast volcanic terrains; (9) the nature of continental uplift processes; (10)
the origin of mineral deposits; (1 1) the nature of metamorphism; (12) the origin of saline depos-
its; (13) the nature of granitization; (14) the origin of coal measures; and so on and on. Not one
of the above phenomena has yet been adequately explained in terms of present processes, and this
is true of an innumerable variety of other important geological phenomena as well. Uniformity is
therefore entirely undeserving of its sacrosanct position in geological interpretation. On the other
hand, all of the above phenomena lend themselves quite readily to interpretation In terms of the
Creation-Catastrophe framework.
The concept of evolution is even more vulnerable than that of uniformity. As already seen, it
is squarely contradicted by the second law of thermodynamics. In fact, most of the evidences
commonly cited for evolution are in reality evidences of deterioration! For example, the very
mechanism believed to cause evolution, that of genetic mutation, is actually a mechanism of
disorganization. A mutation results when something causes a sudden and random change in the
genetic structure of the germ cell. Such changes, except possibly in such rare accidental circum-
BIBLICAL CATASTROPHISM AND GEOLOGY 13
stances as to be negligible, result in a decrease of order in the germ cell and therefore in some
definite harm to the creature experiencing it. Natural selection then acts to weed out those crea-
tures experiencing mutations, and thus to preserve the previous form of the species. If any per-
manent change occurs in the natural state, it almost certainly must be a deterioration of the spe-
cies (witness the evidence of vestigial organs, and the evidence that most modern animals are
represented in the fossil record by larger and stronger forms than are now living).
The only evidence for evolution carrying any real weight is that afforded by the fossil record it-
self, which presumably shows a gradual increase of variety and complexity of organisms with the
advance of geologic time. Thus the data of historical geology, especially that of paleontology, is
the only real evidence for evolution, and this is why the study of historical geology has assumed
such great importance. But in view of the fact that all true scientific law, as well as the testi-
mony of Scripture, negates the very possibility of true evolution, it is evident that this evidence
from paleontology has somehow been misunderstood.
In fact, a very serious case of circular reasoning seems to be present here. The Geologic
Column has essentially been built up on the basis of the fossil data, interpreted on the assumption
of evolution. Rocks containing simple fossils are called old and those with complex fossils are
called young. The idealized, 100-mile thick, geologic column does not actually exist anywhere
in the world, but has been constructed by superposition of formations from many areas, and the
principle used in its erection has been that of evolution. Consequently, the one real proof of
evolution has been developed on the basis of the assumption of evolution! This is admittedly an
oversimplification of the case, but it is nevertheless fundamentally the correct situation.
In any locality, it is true that there usually seems to be an increase in complexity of the con-
tained fossils with increasing elevation, and also that the fossil assemblages tend to occur in more
or less distinct zones. The accepted system of subdivision of the geologic column is quite useful
as a taxonomic device, whether or not it has any real meaning as an evolutionary series. Even at
best, however, there are many omissions and inversions found at specific localities, and these have
to be explained away by such extreme devices as epochs of erosion, overthrusts, etc.
It is quite possible, on the other hand, to explain these same data equally well or better in
terms of the Deluge. The Biblical descriptions of the Flood indicate a tremendous complex of
events occurring during the Flood year — worldwide torrential rains, tremendous erosion, worldwide
tectonic and volcanic upheavals, violent windstorms, gigantic waves and tsunamis, etc., as well
as great destruction of all forms of life, followed necessarily by extensive burials in great "grave-
yards" of future fossil deposits. An infinite variety of depositional characteristics could be postu-
lated at various times and places during the Deluge, often violent but also often relatively quie-
scent.
In general, however, the depositional sequences of fossils, in any one vertical column, would
tend to be from simple to complex, with increase in elevation. This order is that of: (1) increas-
ing elevation of habitat — an ecological zonation; (2) increasing resistance to settling, because
of more complex boundary geometry and lesser specific gravity; and (3) increasing size and mobil-
ity, with consequent increasing ability to postpone inundation and burial by the rising Flood
waters. These sequences would of course be statistical, rather than absolute, and would be sub-
ject to many exceptions, but they would certainly represent the dominant trends. And all of this
is exactly what is found in the strata, even though it has been misinterpreted to teach evolution!
14 GRACE JOURNAL
Thus, the rejection of evolution and of absolute uniformity would not only be quite possible
but would probablyalso be potentially of great value in further geologic research. As one example
of how the Biblical framework could solve a perplexing geologic problem, consider the question of
worldwide climatic change. The Bible indicates that there existed before the Flood a vast blanket
of water vapor around the earth. Among other things, this thermal canopy would have produced
just such a universal warm, pleasant climate as is indicated for most of the systems of the geologic
column. Its precipitation not only was one of the two main causes of the Flood (the other was the
worldwide break-up of the "fountains of the great deep," which were probably vast subterranean
waters and magmas previously restrained under great pressure below the crust), but also would have
led to a sudden chilling of the climate and resultant continental glaciation.
Importance of the Question
If all of this were simply a question of geology and its interpretation, there would be little
reason for anyone to press for such a radical shift in orientation as here proposed. Even if this
were all, however, the possibility of an alternative type of scientific generalization would at
least warrant investigation, strictly from the scientific standpoint.
However, there is much more at stake here than simply a matter of geologic interpretation.
The philosophy of evolutionary uniformitarianism has penetrated very deeply into nearly every as-
pect of human life. Evolution has become fundamental in the treatment of psychology, of soci-
ology, political science, economics, philosophy, — even religion. It is the cornerstone of Dewey's
educational philosophy. Through Nietzsche's adoption and application of Darwinism, evolution
became eventually the quasi-scientific basis of Fascism and Nazism. Even more seriously, Karl
Marx adapted and extended the concept of evolution in developing the Communistic system, and
modern Communism today is grounded squarely on the theory of evolution. This is true, in fact,
for socialism and all its forms, as well as for every other anti-Christian system of the present day.
Jesus said: "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:18). The modern fruit of
the evolutionary philosphy — Communism, Nazism, progressive educationism, materialism, exis-
tentialism, Freudianism, behaviourism, and the rest — warrants a very serious and critical look at
the nature of the tree itself.
Modern geologists can render a uniquely important service to mankind by re-examining, criti-
cally, the paleontological foundation on which rests this gigantic structure of evolution and its
bitter fruits. A renewed recognition of the reality of Creation and the sovereignty of the Creator,
in the history of the earth and in the lives of men, could serve a mighty evangelistic and purifying
purpose in the world, in these latter days.
THE LOGOS CONCEPT
A Critical Monograph on John 1:1
Abridged by the Author
EDGAR J. LOVE LADY
Winona Lake, Indiana
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The title Logos was the chief theological term descriptive of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, which
was applied in the full-flowered Christology of the ancient church, being in a very distinct sense
the basic content and starting-point of the doctrine of Christ. And yet Biblically this title is
found only in the Johannine group of New Testament writings; here in John 1:1, in I John 1:1, and
in Revelation 19:13. Since John presents Christ as Logos introductory to his Gospel, he reveals
that this title is convenient and, more than that, absolutely essential to a proper understanding of
the relationship between the pre-existent Son of God and the historically-manifested divine re-
velation in the human life of Jesus. With stately simplicity John introduces the Lord Jesus Christ
out of the eternal ages, representing Him not only as the focal point of history, but also as the
expansion of history in relation to creation, preservation, and revelation in the world.
Picture yourself as a Jewish Christian familiar with the Book of Beginnings in the Septuagint
version. It begins, en arche, just as in the opening words of John's Gospel. This would suggest
John's acquaintance with the Old Testament in Greek, as well as a conscious effort on his part,
by inspiration, to take this appropriate and stimulating concept and use it to give a new genesis
account, now laid bare in conformity with the One Who manifested revelation in its several forms.
This leads us to several very important questions: What did John mean when he applied this title
to Christ? (And he clearly did so, as in John 1:14-18.) And since the idea of the Logos was a
widespread concept in the ancient world, whence was the origin of this well-known linguistic ex-
pression, and what of its function in earlier usage?
Therefore it will be our task to trace the Logos concept in most of its forms in its historical
development; then to ascertain the extent and the effects of this concept in its several distinct
areas upon John's identification of the Logos; and finally, to seek to arrive at various distinctions
and syntheses relative to the problem. Once this has been accomplished, a brief exegesis of the
verse itself will be undertaken, on the basis of the familiar structural analysis.
VARIOUS INTERPRETATIONS OF THE JOHANNINE SOURCE
1. The Philosophical Logos Concept. The Hellenic concept of the Logos was a doctrine of the
Logos as the Divine Reason: the Logos was the rational principle or impersonal energy which was
responsible for the founding and organization of the world. Thus the Logos was an abstraction,
not an hypostasis (a transliteration of the Greek hupostasis, "substance," hereafter denoting a
real personal subsistence or person).
15
16 GRACE JOURNAL
2. The Pagan Gnostic Concept. This view, held by Bultmann, is that the Logos was a "mytholog-
ical intermediary being" between God and man. Here is an approach to the Docetic heresy in
that this intermediary being at one time even became man, and saved the world by saving himself.
3. The Hebrew "Word" Source. This is the view that the theological usage of the term Logos is
derived directly either from the true Old Testament concept of the debhar Jahweh, or the Palestin-
ian Aramaic Memra, in which the outward dynamic expression of the Word was the chief feature.
Of course, we must distinguish between inspired and uninspired literature, but in both cases the
same descriptive term "Word" was used as active, instrumental, creative, personal, and revelatory
in function.
4. The Philonian Source. In short, Philo's system provided that since God was so far above the
realm of creation, His contact with the world could only have been through the medium of inter-
mediate powers, which, for Philo, became personalized when he replaced the Platonic term "Ideas"
with the Old Testament term "the Word of God," using Logos as the Greek equivalent of that
Scriptural form.
5. The "Special Guidance of the Spirit" View. Here is an opinion which holds that it is useless
to inquire as to the origin of this idea in the mind of John; we really have little to do with the
origin of the term; for if we believe that John was one of those men who had the special guidance
of the Spirit, then the term Logos is applied to Christ by God Himself, and it becomes us only to
inquire why it is so applied to Him.
6. The Hebrew "Wisdom" Source. J. Rendel Harris takes the prologue of John directly back to
the Wisdom references in Old Testament literature. It is asserted that there is a connection be-
tween the Logos and the Sophia which makes them practically interchangeable. Proverbs 8:22-23
sets the stage for this linkage, going on to elaborate on the activity of this "Wisdom," which is
parallel in several ways to the Old Testament concept of the creative Word, becoming in later
Judaism an intermediary personification, a Divine hypostasis.
THE HISTORICO-LINGUISTIC BACKGROUND
Since the idea of the Logos was a concept of widespread usage in oriental-Semitic and Greek
literature both before and contemporaneous with Christianity, it is not only profitable, but essen-
tial for us to examine some of the actual material which presents the various facets of the Logos
concept. Of course, the very archaic forms must be treated as ultimate sources which hark back
to revelation at creation, which have become corrupted due to the depravity of human nature, but
which also have survived in one form or another, finally arriving at the true, though perhaps in-
complete doctrine of the Creative Word in the Old Testament, and at last, the perfect realization
of this doctrine in the identification made by John: "In the beginning was the Word."
Some of the earliest historical notices that we have come from Egypt, the "Gift of the Nile,"
which in turn became one of the two cradles of civilization. In the Egyptian cosmogony the divine
THE LOGOS CONCEPT 17
creative activity was predominant in fashioning the gods and the elements of heaven and earth ac-
cording to divine thought and the sacred oracle. Atum, or Ptah, or Thoth (according to historical
period and geographical location) became the "heart and tongue" of the council of the gods, and
the utterance of the thought in the form of a divine fiat brought forth the world. From the Mem-
phite theology comes this illustrative text:
Ptah the Great, that is, the heart and tongue of the Ennead; [Ptah] . . .who gave birth to
gods;. . .There came into being as the heart and there came into being as the tongue (some-
thing) in the form of Atum. The mighty Great One is Ptah, who transmitted [life] to all
gods, as well as (to) their ka's through this heart, by which Horus became Ptah, and through
this tongue, by which Thoth became Ptah... And so Ptah was satisfied (or, "rested"), after
he had made everything, as well as all the divine order. '
Quite naturally, creation stories such as this one offer divergences due to locality and time-
sequence, but the patterns and results are practically the same throughout, although the method-
ological symbolisms tend to vary.
This concept is more forcefully presented in Sumero-Babylonian thought in the form of poetry
which represented the word of the god as a powerful, dynamic figure, the extension of the divine
energy in the realm of creation and earthly affairs. All that the creating deity had to do was to
lay his plans, utter the word, and pronounce the name.^ An Akkadian hymn to the moon-godSin
portrays the dynamistic aspect of this concept in Mesopotamia:
Thou! When thy word is pronounced in heaven the
Igigi prostrate themselves.
Thou! When thy word is pronounced on earth the
Anunnaki kiss the ground.
Thou! When thy word drifts along in heaven like
the wind it makes rich the feeding and
drinking of the land.
Thou! When thy word settles down on the earth
green vegetation is produced.
Thou! Thy word makes fat the sheepfold and stall;
it makes living creatures widespread.
Thou! Thy word causes truth and justice to be,
so that the people speak the truth.
Thou! Thy word which is far away in heaven, which
is hidden in the earth is something no one seeso
Thou! Who can comprehend thy word, who can equal it?^
Even apart from such poetic representations, the Sumerian and Akkadian terms enem and awatu
give linguistic evidence of the dynamistic association of the "word."^ The foregoing factors sup-
port our thesis that these ancient peoples conceived of the divine word under the image of physi-
cal-cosmic power, in which the voice of the god acts separately and distinctly as an entity poss-
essing power. We take this as a strong indication that the "word" concept is basically of Near
Eastern origin, an oriental development long before the Greeks launched into their more lauded
speculations. Quite naturally, these pagan references indicate their own degeneration, since they
18 GRACE JOURNAL
exhibit a vast difference from the Biblical usage, as will be shown presently. Our position on
matters of common expression in the ancient Near East is that in the Biblical account the concept
is preserved from error, a factor which does not militate against the statements of truth found in
profane sources, but which does account for the differences.
In the Canaanite literature discovered at the ancient site of Ugarit the expressions are largely
parallel to those of Mesopotamia. Baal, the storm-god, creates a thunderbolt to demonstrate his
command to men when he re-institutes prosperity on the earth. He also reveals his word in the
phenomena of nature — whisper of stones, rustling of trees, roar of the deep, and celestial music. ^
Baal gives forth his voice from the clouds when he furnishes rain in the form of a thunderstorm:
When Baal gives forth his holy voice,
When Baal keeps discharging the utterance of his lips,
his holy voice shakes the earth,
. . .the mountains quake,
a-quiver are. . .east and west,
the high places of the earth rock.°
The significance of this usage is the poetic representation given to the voice and speech of Baal
in the active fury of the re-instituted thunderstorm, showing the conceptual relationship, mytho-
logically interpreted, between the emanation of Baal's voice and the active forces in nature,, The
word of Baal is not clearly hypostatized as a distinct conceptual being having personal existence,
but this usage does show the concept of the divine word as more than mere conversation; it indi-
cates a tendency of the Oriental mind to conceive of God's relation to the forces and personages
of this world as being mediated through the almighty word of his voice.
The Hellenic doctrine of the Logos has been influential in both philosophical and Christian
thought, for it deals with an attempt to explain and comprehend God's relation to the world,
actually the basis of all religio-philosophical speculation. And speculation it was, for the Hel-
lenic impartiality in combining a strong sense of reality with an equally strong power of abstraction
enabled these Greeks at an early date to recognize their religious ideas for what they actually
were: creations of artistic imagination. Thereby they set aworld of ideas in place of a mythological
world, a world built up by the strength of independent human thought, the Logos, which could
claim to explain reality in a natural way. For Heraclitus, Logos meant a law, an impersonal law
of change.^ To Anaxagoras Logos was Mind, an impersonal moving principle." Plato conceived
the Logos as the intermediate Demiurge which God had to form matter from perfect Ideas. ' For
the Stoics, the intelligible structure of the universe was the Logos: active, creative world-reason,
unfolding the divine plan in world processes by myriad forms and laws which give individual divine
manifestation to individual objects and their activities. This pantheistic concept can be eminently
seen in Cleanthes' Hymn to Zeus:
For that we are Thine offspring; nay, all that in
myriad motion
Lives for its day on the earth bears one impress —
thy likeness — upon it...
Aye, for thy conquering hands have a servant of
living fire —
THE LOGOS CONCEPT 19
Sharp is the bolt! — where it falls, Nature shrinks
at the shock and doth shudder.
Thus thou directest the Word universal that pulses
through all things...'^
Thus in Greek thought there was no personal transcendent God like the God of the Old Testament,
much less that of the personalized Logos of the Gospel of John. And the volatile usage of the word
logos by the Hellenes does not significantly indicate a dynamistic conception so characteristic of
Semitic literature.
The Old Testament is an ancient book of Near Eastern geographical origin, and in this sense
contains various common conceptions found generally in "the Fertile Crescent." But the Hebrews
made use of Near Eastern representations not just to represent their own views, but as a vehicle to con-
vey truth by way of illustration, or for the purposes of aesthetic appreciation. Che of these concep-
tions which the Old Testament has utilized for these purposes is the idea surrounding the powerful
aspect of divine word. But there is an important distinction between the two groups, and this is
one of form: in the Old Testament the word of Yahweh is never a mere force of nature as was the
case in surrounding cultures, for the extra-Biblical gods were personified forces of nature, while
Yahweh was personal, transcendent, and moral from the very beginning of Hebrew history; hence
the debhar Yahweh is the function of a conscious, moral personality. In profane Semitic literature
the "word" of the god was a material, physical principle, while in the Old Testament the Word
exists in the actuating expression of the transcendent God. This can be seen in at least four as-
pects in the Old Testament: (1) the Creative (Psa. 33:6; 104:7; 148:1-5); (2) the Mediatorial-
Preservative (Psa. 107:20; 147:15-18; 148:6,8); (3) the Judicial (Hos. 6:5; Isa. 11:4); and, (4)
the Prophetic (Isa. 9:8; Jer. 33:14). The two strongest passages which support an independent
personification of the Word as divine creative activity are Psalm 33:6; "By the word of Jehovah
were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth" (A.S.V.), and Isaiah
55:10,11: "For as the rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but
watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, and giveth seed to the eater; so shall my word
be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that
which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (A.S.V.)
From the uninspired literature largely dating from the Inter-Testamental period we are able to
discern a departure from the Old Testament terminology surrounding the Word. In the canonical
writings it was "the Word of God," while in these it is simply "the Word," perhaps the result of
yielding to extra-Jewish pressures in a world that was rapidly becoming cosmopolitanized. The
"Word" is remarkably hypostatized in the Wisdom of Solomon 18:15,16:
Thine all-powerful word leaped from heaven out of
the royal throne,
A stern warrior, into the midst of the doomed land,
Bearing as a sharp sword thine unfeigned commandment;
And standing it filled all things with death;
And while it touched heaven it trode upon the earth.
20 GRACE JOURNAL
This usage is rather in line with the Aramaic Targumim, which represented the acts of God by the
personification of His attributes. The reason for this substitution in the Targumim was the matter
of avoiding the offense of anthropomorphisms, the possible misinterpretation of the text, and the
desire of some overly-zealous Jews to protect the holiness of God by using terms which designated
certain attributes or aspects of His personality. To quote Albright, "In Deut. 4:24 it is not God
Himself, but His Memra which is a consuming fire."'' The Memra (word) was objectivized as
activities in the terms of a mediator, but at the same time failing to identify the mediator with the
Messiah .
There are two passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls that are claimed by some to have a bearing on
the doctrine of creation as found in the Johannine Prologue. 12 |n Spite of the superficial simil-
arity to the Johannine passage, the Qumran references are not identical at all because of one
major difference: the Dead Sea Scriptures attribute creation to God, while John ascribes it to
"the Word," Who, in New Testament theology is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, distinct from God
the Father in personality, though not in essence. However, several Qumran passages are in line
with the characteristic Semitic conception of the dynamic word, at times approaching the Old
Testament form.
The Logos-doctrine was the bedrock of Philo's system, the focal-point of all his views. He
took Hellenic concepts and attempted to synthesize them with the Word of the transcendent God
found in the Old Testament. The result was the Logos as an intermediary being between God and
the created world. His notable weakness isin oscillating between a personal and impersonal being;
that is, it is inconsistent to represent, as he does, the Logos as a person distinct from God and at
the same time as only a property of God actively operating in the world. Without further elabora-
tion we can state confidently that in Philo the Logos differed from the Logos in John with respect
to person, deity, existence, activity, historical manifestation, and terminology, discrepancies
which militate against the possibility that John directly borrowed the concept from Philo.
A POSITIVE APPROACH TO THE ORIGIN OF THE JOHANNINE CONCEPT
We can properly approach the problem of the Johannine usage on the basis of its alignment
with the Semitic, and, more narrowly and directly, Hebrew expressions. This is not to minimize
the extent to which John introduced new elements and fresh interpretation to the Logos concept
by means of the revelation of inspiration and the historical manifestation of JesusChrist as the Son
of God. But in view of the extensive quotation of Old TestamentScripture by theChristian authors
stimulated by the guidance of the Holy Spirit along with their strongly-imbedded personal famil-
iarity with the Jewish Scriptures, it is most natural to look to such a source for the key to John's
employment of the term "Word." And Christ Himself revealed such a foundation when He said to
the Jews, "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these
are they which bear witness of me" (John 5:39,40 A.S.V.).
From the Old Testament come four lines of teaching which have a bearing on John's doctrine,
and with which the Johannine concept marvellously agrees. These are: (1) the Word of the per-
sonal God as causative divine formative energy, responsible for the present arrangement of the
cosmos (Gen. 1); (2) the appearance of the mal^ach Yahweh, the "Angel of the Lord," God's
THE LOGOS CONCEPT 21
messenger of revelation to the patriarchs and prophets; (3) the activity of the debhar Yahweh,
"the Word of Jehovah," primarily in the Psalms and Prophets; and (4) the prominent Wisdom pass-
ages of Proverbs 8 and Job 28.
This Christological concept is unintelligible and inexplicable as a Christian doctrine outside
its rich heritage in God's most ancient inspired revelation: John interpreted what he knew of the
Word personally in unequivocal conformity with the Old Testament. And this thought is suggestive
of our whole approach to the issue: that the supreme influence in John's mind was the Person of
Christ Himself and the realization that in this pure and holy life of Christ on earth all of God's
purposes in revelation were accomplished. This is the conclusion we reach after a study of John's
Gospel and his other writings: he was simply overwhelmed by the truth of Christ's message, and
this was explainable on no other grounds than that He in Himself was the true message He pro-
claimed, the very revelation of God, indeed, The Word. John's conviction on this matter was
further heightened by an acute sensitivity to the Old Testament teaching that the Word was medi-
ator of creation and revelation, a consideration further supported by other New Testament writers'
use of the Old Testament as the only authoritative pre-Christian source of doctrine. This assertion
is further borne out by the impact of Christ Himself on other authors of the New Testament, along
with their comparable teaching of the eternal pre-existence of Christ and His ministry in creation
and redemption, which at last becomes the content of the Christian message: the word of recon-
ciliation.
We would stress, then, that the Biblical and Personal elements were the foremost and immediate
elements in the development of Johannine Christology, making the employment of logos emphati-
cally and distinctively a Christian concept, and more than that, a revelation by the Spirit of God.
And what of these extra-Biblical instances of hypostatical speculation? It need not be absolutely
denied that John was acquainted with them, and did, indeed, enjoy in their presentation a pre-
paration for the final, divinely-inspired view of the Logos, a preparation both in the partial truths
these speculations contained, and by way of antithesis to their erroneous conceptions. But these
were only secondary and subordinate to the Biblical and Personal aspects, which charged John's
message with that vital, life-giving energy drawn from the Word Himself, the "power of God unto
salvation," "even to them that believe on His name."
A BRIEF EXEGESIS OF THE VERSE
The Apostle John forcefully introduces his theological life of Christ by the first attribute pre-
dicated of the Logos, His Pre-existence, His Eternity: "In the beginning was the Word." The sim-
ilarity of en arche to bere»stt in Genesis 1:1 is prominent, the Genesis account marking the tem-
poral initiation of creation. By this identification the writer is saying, "When the act of creation
took place the Word was." The exact source of regarding the Word's Eternity of Person is found in
the imperfect en, "was." This construction features the durative aspect of the imperfect tense,
for "the augment throws linear action into the past." '^ This construction thus affirms that the
Logos already was existing prior to the punctiliar act of creation, throwing back the concept of
the Word's Being from the impact of creation into timeless eternity. From a philosophical stand-
point John's construction may be inadequate, for to use Sn in order to express duration and con-
tinuance in an area where there is no possibility for such a designation (in eternity) would be a
categorical contradiction. But the existential verb eirni, which designates a thing as existing as
22 GRACE JOURNAL
distinguished from non-existent, coupled with the durative imperfect, comes as close to repre-
senting pure, eternal Being as it is possible for the tongue of man to come in such a succinct
statement.
The second attribute of the Word, that of Equality with God, is distinguished by the Person-
ality of the Logos as identified by the preposition pros: "and the Word was with God." It was no
accident that this preposition was used, for the preposition pros is distinctive above all others in
the aspect of close proximity, "denoting direction towards a thing or position and state looking
towards the object. One might correctly say that this preposition gives the distinct impression of
a tendency toward, a movement in the direction of, God. It has even been translated as "face to
face with God." '** This would require conceiving of a relationship between two persons, the one
an absolute being, completely independent, sufficient within Himself, towards which the other
continually tends (en). This fact-to-face relationship is sustained by two other passages, Mark
14:49, and II Cor. 5:8. In accord with these usages John specifies the followship, and hence the
equality, that exists between the Logos and God as between persons, and does not consider them
as abstract, metaphysical concepts. At first glance there might be interpreted a duality of Deity
from this phrase, or a subordination or creation-emanation from God, superficially regarded. John
leaves it to the next phrase to reconcile this problem, and the answer given there shows decisively
that it is only the Personality of the Word that is being considered in this second proposition.
John 1:1 has long been a battle-ground between orthodox Christians, who would uphold the
doctrine of the Trinity, and the non-trinitarians, who by their interpretations exhibit tendencies
toward polytheism, Unitarianism, or Arianism. The focal point of this controversy is the third pro-
position dealing with the Deity, or Essence of the Word stated by John in this verse: "And the
Word was God." Defective views such as those of Arianism were long ago rejected by the common
action of Christians who held to the orthodox position of the Christian faith. But in spite of this
well-known fact a form of the Arian heresy persists to this day. The most active exponents of this
teaching are the "International Bible Students," more popularly known as "Jehovah'sWitnesses."
Their view of the Person of Christ is represented in this quotation from their most recent literature:
He (the Logos) is the "only begotton Son" because he is the only one whom God himself
created directly without the agency or co-operation of any creature (John 3:16 A. V.;
A.S.; Dy). If the Word or Logos was not the first living creature whom God created, who,
then, is God's first created Son, and how has this first creation been honored, and used
as the first-made one of the family of God's sons? We know of no one but the Wordor
Logos.16
The absence of the article ho with theos in the predicate nominative construction of this verse is
claimed to support the foregoing interpretation; that the Logos was like God as a. god, possessing
some of the qualities of God, but not God Himself or a part of God. '' To this we would apply
the following refutation:
1 . If John had wished to convey this impression he could have used theios — "divine, deity, like
God"— already used in II Pet. 1:3 and Acts 17:29.
2. To posit such an intermediary being would be to contradict the strict monotheism of Scripture.
THE LOGOS CONCEPT 23
3. A study of predicate nouns with and without the article occurring both before and after the
verb (by E.C. Colwell of the University of Chicago) shows that out of 112 definite predicates
before the verb, only 15 are used with the article (13%), while 97 are used without the article
(87%). From this and other discussion he concludes that word-order and not definiteness is the
variable quantum in passages of this nature. The exceptions to the general rule that definite pre-
dicate nouns regularly take the article are: (1) definite predicate nouns which follow the verb
usually take the article; (2) definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the
article; (3) proper names regularly lack the article in the predicate.
4. The principles here outlined are at once destructive of the arguments advanced by those who
would regard the construction as indefinite. The study by Colwell shows that a predicate nomin-
ative preceding the verb cannot be translated as indefinite solely because of the absence of the
article, if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, clearly the case here.
5. The statement "and the Word was God" is not strange in the prologue of the Gospel that is
climaxed by Thomas' confession, "My Lord and my God."
The proposition as we have interpreted it recognized the Logos as God in the fullest sense of
all that man can conceive of God to be. It resolves the seeming duality suggested by the second
proposition in affirming that the Word simply h God. This leaves us with a paradox which is irre-
concilable by human logic and which stands logically unresolved in the New Testament. The
Logos is_ God, and yet He is with God. That is to say that God and the Logos are not two beings,
and yet they are also not identical. The obvious conclusion is that the Logos is God with respect
to essence, while He is distinct with reference to personality, harmonizing with the testimony of
other Scripture on the distinctions and unifying factors within the Trinity. We must take these
Biblical statements as they stand, realizing that on the one hand the Persons of the Godhead are
equal in being, power, and glory (Matt. 28:19, II Cor. 13:14), while on the other, there exist
certain distinctions of activity and voluntary subordination between them, but these concern their
respective functions. The primary function of the Logos, as we have seen, was to reveal the action
of God in this earthly framework by the processes of creation, preservation, and revelation, and
redemption. And He did all this because of Who He Was!
PARAPHRASE
"At the initiation of time when the creation of the world took place, the Logos — (the pre-
existent, pre-incarnate Son of God, Who personally intervened in the cosmos for the purposes of
creation, preservation, and revelation) — this Logos was already with God the Father, and this
same Word was the essence of God in the most absolute sense."
DOCUMENTATION
1. John A. Wilson, "The theology of Memphis," Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton Univ. Press), p. 5.
2. S. N. Kramer, "Sumerian Theology and Ethics, " The Harvard Theological Review, XLIX (Jan-
uary 1954), pp. 53, 54.
3. ]bid., p. 50.
4. W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity (Doubleday), p. 195.
10
24 GRACE JOURNAL
5. H.L. Ginsberg, "Poems about Baal and Anath," Religions of the Ancient Near East, ed. Isaac
Mendelsohn (Liberal Arts Press), p. 245.
6. Theodor H. Gaster, Thespis (Doubleday), p. 197.
7. Gordon H. Clark, Thales to Dewey (Houghton Mifflin), p. 19.
8. Ibid., p. 34.
9. [bid., p. 94.
Frederick Mayer, A History of Ancient & Medieval Philosophy (American Book Co.), pp. 228,
229. - -
1 1 . Albright, op_. ci_t. , p. 372.
12. Theodor H. Gaster, The Dead Sea Scriptures (Doubleday), pp. 43, 82.
13. James H. Moulton, A Grammar of N .T. Greek (Clark), Vol . I, p. 128.
14. Joseph H. Thayer, A Greek -English Lexicon (Clark), p. 541.
15. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek N.T. (Broadman), p. 623.
16. "The Word"— Who is He? According to John (Watch Tower), p. 59.
17. Ibid., pp. 56, 58.
18. E.C. Colwell, "A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek N.T.," Reprint from
Journal of Biblical Literature, Lll (1933), p. 9.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST
HERMAN A. HOYT
President, Grace Theological Seminary
INTRODUCTION
Just as the seed of the woman culminated in the great masterpiece of God, the Lord Jesus
Christ, so also the seed of the serpent will ultimately culminate in the great masterpiece of Satan,
the great Antichrist of the endtime. This person will surpass all his forebears in power, prominence,
pride, blasphemy, ruthlessness and lawlessness. This adversary of God, Christ, the saints, and
even humanity itself will sound the death knell of civilization. At last his destruction will mark
the close of this present evil age.
Two extreme attitudes have been expressed toward the doctrine of this person set forth in the
Scriptures. There are some who do not care for any discussion of this evil genius. This is tragic,
for the Bible not only gives an amazing amount of information, but Christian people, and others as
well, are hungry for that information „ Failure to provide information from the proper source ex-
poses people to information from the wrong source. There are others who want to major on this
area of prophetic truth to the exclusion of other precious truth, and thus become lopsided. The
proper attitude is to give this doctrine the same measure and place in teaching as do the Scriptures.
It will thus take on proper perspective in the thinking of God's people.
For two very good reasons, there ought to be an adequate discussion on this subject. On the
one hand, the Scriptures have a great deal to say on this doctrine for the protection and edification
of believers. On the other hand there are certain tendencies in operation in the world today that
make it clear that such a person will appear on the scene. Believers should be informed so that
they will be enabled to discern the signs of the times.
There is a wealth of material in the Old Testament on this subject, but the vast amount of in-
formation is to be found in the New Testament. While the picture will not be entirely complete
to confine the investigation solely to the New Testament, it is amazing how nearly complete it is.
Though isolated details can be found in many books of the New Testament, for the most part the
doctrine is confined to Matthew, John, II Thess., I John, II John, and Revelation.
I. THE GREEK TERM "ANTICHRIST" USED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
1 . The meaning of this compound Greek word is threefold in its significance. The preposition
anti means to stand over against and thus in opposition to. So that in combination with Christos
the ultimate sense is that this one is opposed to Christ. ' This is not difficult to believe inasmuch
as the Scriptures clearly declare that this evil genius shall "make war against him that sat on the
white horse" (Rev. 17:14; 19:19), and "opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God"
(2 Thess. 2:4).
25
26 GRACE JOURNAL
The method of accomplishing this end is suggested by another meaning of the preposition, name-
ly, that it means "in the stead of," hence usurpation or substitution. If the compound word will
not bear this meaning, the idea does appear in the Scriptures. Of the Antichrist it is declared
that "he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:4),
In this sensehe is "a pseudo-Christ whowill present himself to humanity as 'the man of the hour"
(Matt. 24:5,24). The manifestation of this grsat adversary of Christ, at least at the outset, is
that of a counterpart of an imitation of Christ. This is Satan's method. "For such are false apos-
tles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers
also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (2 Cor. 11:13-15). When this one appears
on the scene his "coming is after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders,
and with all deceivablenessof unrighteousness. . .and. . .strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie" (2 Thess. 2:9-11). Thus he comes on "a white horse" (Rev. 6:2).
2. The usage of the term "Antichrist" is confined to the New Testament, though the idea cer-
tainly appears in the Old Testament. The apostle John employs the expression five times in his
epistles. The first use of the term is to designate this eschatological personage in his qualities as
an opposer of Christ. Therefore the definite article is not used: "little children, it is the last
time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come" (I John 2:18). The second usage points to
the "many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time" (I John 2:18). The third use points
out one of the essential qualities of this adversary, namely, that he is a liar, for he denies that
Jesus is the Christ, and thus denies the Father and the Son (I John 2:22). The fourth use has to do
with the message in relation to the first coming of Christ. The spirit of antichrist will not confess
"that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh" (I John 1:3). And most amazingly, the fifth appearance
of the word is in relation to the second coming of Christ. His spirit will not confess that "Jesus
Christ is come in the flesh" (II John 7). "Is come" in I John 4:2 is a perfect tense and is rendered
more accurately into English by the expression "has come," whereas the verb in II John 7 is present
tense and is best translated into English by the expression, "is coming."
3. The confirmation of the meaning and usage of this term comes in the larger content of
teaching in the New Testament bearing on this person. The warnings of Christ cannot be set aside.
"For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many" (Matt. 24:5).
"For there shall arise false Christs. . .and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it
were possible, they shall deceive the very elect" (Matt. 24:24). The apostle Paul enlarges on the
various details that will characterize the appearance of the Antichrist, such as lawlessness, the
working of Satan, and strong delusion (2 Thess. 2:3-12). The apostle John emphasizes the inner
meaning or quality of this man in his epistles (I John; II John), leaving the particular identity of
this one for rather full presentation in the Book of the Revelation (Rev. 6, 1 1 , 13, 17, 19).
II. THE NAMES OF ANTICHRIST IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
As far as it is possible to determine, eight designations are given to this adversary of the end
time. In Matthew he is referred to as "the abomination of desolation" (24:15), though more spe-
cifically this probably denotes his image, and as a "false Christ" (24:24). In John's gospel he is
probably referred to as "the one coming in his own name" (John 5:43). Paul refers to him as "that
man of sin," or perhaps better as "the lawless one" (2 Thess. 2:3), and as "the son of perdition"
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST 27
(2 Thess. 2:3). The name "Antichrist" appears in the epistles of John (I John 2:18; II John 7), and
the name "beast" in the Revelation (11:7; 13:2). According to Pink at least 22 names appear in
the Old Testament. Others still supply additional names from the Scripture. ^
III. THE PERSONALITY AND GENIUS OF THIS MAN
The greatest person ever to appear in the earth, save one, the Lord Jesus Christ, is yet to
come. The great saints of the world such as Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Elijah, Daniel, and Paul
fall in the class of holy men, and their greatness belongs to an entirely different sphere. This man
will rise head and shoulders above men in general, calculated to earn him the designation of super-
man, in fact the worship that belongs to deity. His appearance on the scene, his rise to power,
his genius as a military leader, and his exploits will be nothing short of spectacular, colossal,
supernatural .
1. He will be different from all other men, so different that the peoples will be saying, "Who
is like unto the beast" (Rev. 13:4). In his qualities for kingship he exhibits ability to suffer a
death stroke and experience some sort of miraculous healing, producing wonder in the multitudes
of earth and eliciting their worship (Rev. 13:3-4). With this sort of leader at the head, his king-
dom differs from all other kingdoms.
2 . This man wi 1 1 possess an amazingly high degree of intelligence. His number is the nearest
approach to perfection that man can reach, which is 666 (Rev. 13:18). For the trinity of holiness
the number is 777. For the trinity of evil it is 666. He rises up out of the sea of nations (Rev. 13:1).
He demonstrates his ability among ten kings, so that they decide to give their power into his hands
(Rev. 17:13). Satan recognizes his qualifications for leadership and gives to him "his power and
his seat, and his authority" (Rev. 13:2). He is able to attract the services of an able man to serve
as his premier and publicity agent, the false prophet (Rev. 13:11-17).
3. Antichrist turns out to be a great orator and demagogue. He is described as having a
"mouth as the mouth of a lion" (Rev. 13:2), suggesting the regal authority with which he speaks.
The content of his speaking is "great things" (Rev. 13:5), which may describe the amazing ability
he has to handle g wide range of subjects with focility. It seems evident thgt blgsphemy ggginst
God, Christ, the soints, gnd the church will characterize most of his speech. "Upon his heads the
name of blasphemy" appear (Rev. 13:1). "There was given unto him a mouth speaking. . .blasphem-
ies" (Rev. 13:5). "And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name,
and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven" (Rev. 13:6). Inasmuch as he comes in his own
name (John 5:43), the claims for himself will constitute a large part of his public utterance.
4. It seems to be a valid conclusion that this man is a philosopher of some distinction. The
"great things" uttered by his mouth surely point in this direction (Rev. 13:5). He appears on the
scene in the wake of a great religious rebellion (2 Thess. 2:3). The motivating force of this re-
bellion is the philosophy of pantheism which prepares the way for the rejection of all thought of
the supernatural as in anyway transcendent to this world and inculates the doctrine of the unity of
human and divine. 5 Upon this background he is able to promote his own prominence and make his
claims to being divine (2 Thess. 2:4). He traffics with the demonic world (Rev. 16:12), who pro-
mulgate doctrines contrary to the sound and wholesome words of Scripture (I Tim. 4:1). Vast
throngs of humanity are thus led astray with his clever rationalizing away of the truth (I John
4:1-6).
28 GRACE JOURNAL
5. This man is also a clever and persistent politician. He recognizes the value and force of
religion. So he does not hesitate to submit outwardly to the domination of the false religious sys-
tem of the endtime (Rev. 17:3,7). Once he has gained his end, he will turn and destroy the whore
who is sitting upon him (Rev. 17:16-17). With craftiness, he gradually rises to power among the
ten kings in whose midst he first appears. At last he convinces them that they should form a con-
federation of which he becomes the head (Rev. 17:12-13). They place their countries and re-
sources at his disposal, hoping for protection and prolongation of power, little realizing that it
will last only for "one hour" (Rev. 17:12). They carry out his will in destroying the whore (Rev.
17:16-17), and march at last with the Beast to the battle of Armageddon and their own destruction
(Rev. 19:19-21). With ruthless intent Antichrist climbs to one height after another on the fallen
forms of his accomplices until at last he reaches his goal, sovereign rulership of the entire world
(Rev. 13:3,7).
6. The Scriptures suggest that he will present a strong, attractive, physical appearance. The
words "shewing himself" of 2 Thess. 2:4 mean quite literally to show off or to make a public ex-
hibition or display. The people shall see something in him, and it is what they see that impresses
them. As a result the whole world of unregenerate men shall marvel at him, shall follow him, and
shall worship him (Rev. 13:3,4; 17:8). These facts lead the Bible student to conclude that he will
be an exceptional physical specimen, possessing not only a large, well-proportioned body, but also
an attractive countenance, and an impressive appearance.
7. The foregoing qualities combine to make him the world's great military genius. He will
demonstrate this in his rising military career. Astride a white charger, he goes forth conquering
and to conquer, and equipped with a bow, he rides into one victory after another to capture and
hold the crown he wears (Rev. 6:1-2). Red war, black famine, pale death, and religious perse-
cution follow him, but his career is ever one of ascension. Even the wound unto death does not
hinder his progress upward. For at last it is healed in such an amazing way that the peoples of
earth cry out "Who is able to make war with him?" (Rev. 13:4).
8. This man then becomes the astonishment and wonder of the world. Differing from all others
who have preceded him, possessing an amazing degree of high intelligence, demonstrating himself
among men as no other demagogue before him, displaying an insight into the abstruse areas of hu-
man thought, cleverly manipulating the political strings of society, winning a following by his
massive frame and attractive face, and in his military campaigns across the world, even defying
death, he becomes the latest wonder of the world (Rev. 13:3-4). Yet beneath this glittering ex-
terior is the nature of a beast, a wild beast who knows no law but the law of his own desire (Rev .
13:1; 2 Thess. 2:3-4).
IV. THE RELIGION AND MORAL CHARACTER OF ANTICHRIST
All that is good in mankind will come to its fruitage in this man. Yet all of this will be turned
to carry out the purposes of Hell because this man will be the very incarnation of human sin,
pride, arrogance, rebellion, and unholy ambition.
1. In religion, this man will be a materialistic pantheist (2 Thess. 2:3-4). A religious re-
bellion prepares the way for his appearance in society. Basically this philosophy is pantheistic,
denying the transcendence of God and asserting that creation is the total of reality. Once this
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST 29
philosophy permeates society, this great man appears on the scene and demands the worship belong-
ing to deity.0 This consists in the deification of the natural level, the enthronement of physical
forces, the obliteration of moral and spiritual distinctions, and the inauguration of the wildest
outbreak of physical violence, moral corruption, and spiritual degeneracy the world has ever seen.
Opposition toGod and the exaltation of self above all that is called God or that is worshipped can
lead in no other direction.
2. In expression, this man will be a blasphemer on an extraordinary scale. He wears the
name of blasphemy (Rev. 13:1), is given a mouth to speak blasphemy (Rev. 13:5), gives expression
to blasphemy (Rev. 13:6), and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped
(2 Thess. 2:4). Blasphemy originates from two sources: one is intellectual and the other is moral.
It consists in the affirmation of untruth about God or the things of God for the purpose of injuring.
In the case of this man, it would appear that the source is wholly moral, namely, hatred for God
and the desire to injure Him and all who are associated with Him. Dispassionately, deliberately
he denies the truth about God (I John 2:22; 4:3; II John 7).
3. In character, this man is the greatest antinomian of gjj humanity. He is described by Paul
as "that man of sin" or "that Wicked" (2 Thess. 2:3, 8). Both of these expressions represent the
Greek words which means "the lawless one." At last, the mystery of lawlessness produces its fruit
in this man (2 Thess. 2:7). Sin is lawlessness (I John 3:4 ASV) . But through the centuries there
has been a certain restraint placed upon it, in that the Holy Spirit of God has exercised through
God's people a hindrance to its full expression. But at last this restrainer, the Holy Spirit, will
cease to operate since the Church in whom He dwells will have been translated (2 Thess. 2:6-7).
Immediately this Lawless One will be revealed (2 Thess. 2:8). Being intolerant of all restraint,
except the law of his own sinful desire, there will then begin the course and career of the most
high-handed tyranny the world has ever seen.
4. In conduct, there will follow an almost unbelievable exhibition of selfish ambition. In the
ultimate sense this will consist of at least four things. There will be a calculated and persistent
course of opposition to God and all things associated with Him. Running parallel with this will be
the claims to deity in his effort to exalt himself above God. To buttress his claims and achieve
his end, there will be a carefully developed and executed system of demonstration to prove his
claims. Finally, there will be the demands for worship and the compelling measures to bring this
about. Opposition to God, exaltation above God, and demonstration of deity (2 Thess. 2:4, 9-11),
can well be expected to culminate in the image to whom divine adoration must be paid, or suffer
the penalty of death (Matt. 24:15; Rev. 13:14-17).
V. THE ORIGIN OF THE ANTICHRIST
A sevenfold origin of the Antichrist provides food for thought, though perhaps not all details
can be insisted upon.
1 . Out of the social chaos of the times, which provides an excellent opportunity for the strong
man and savior of society, this man appears. He is described by John as rising up out of the sea
(Rev. 13:1). If the waters are in any sense a picture of the troubled conditions of society (Rev.
17:15; Luke 21:25-26), then this is the opportunity for such a man to offer himself to the world.
30 GRACE JOURNAL
When such men as Arnold Toynbee, noted British historian, are calling for the strong man, it
would appear that the very conditions of the world are maneuvering to that end.
2. Out of a geographical division of the world represented by ten horns (Rev. 13:1; 17:3, 7,
12, 16) comes the beast. Equating this with Daniel 2, 7, and 8, it must be concluded that this
man arises out of one of the divisions of Alexander's Empire, and this division must be that portion
lying to the West on the continent of Europe.
3. In the political sense, this man is a citizen of that area which will eventually become the
revived Roman Empire. This is the final Empire of Gentile civilization, that eventually swallows
up all other great powers (Rev. 13:7). In the final period there will be g i v e n to the leader
of this ten-horned Roman confederacy "power. . .over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations."
4. This raises the question concerning the national origin of Antichrist. Though there is by no
means any decisive answer, there are suggestions that he must be a Jew. The absence of the tribe
of Dan from the listing in Rev. 7:4-8 has been cited as proof, but it is doubtful whether this reason-
ing can be trusted. Speaking to His own people Jesus said, "I am come in my Father's name, and
ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive" (John 5:43). Im-
plicit in this is the appearance of one from their own nationality. Inasmuch as this one will enter
into negotiations with Israel, suggesting confidence on their part, it is doubtful if any other than
a Jew could so completely deceive them.
5. But there is a personal element in the origin of the Antichrist. This man is a member of the
Satanic trinity (Rev. 16:13). He is commissioned of the Devil (Rev. 13:2), and energized and e-
quipped by him (2 Thess. 2:9). But he is in every sense a man, that man whose greatness and moral
disposition lends himself to a covenant with the Devil (Rev. 13:18). In Christ, the Devil found no
answering response. But in this man he finds one who is ready to sell his soul and freedom for
sovereignty over the world (Matt. 4:8-9; Luke 4:6-8).
6. The spiritual origin of this man must not be overlooked. He is the seed of the serpent (Gen.
3:15), but in that sense he is the product of the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:7 cf. 3, 8). Law-
lessness having been initiated by Adam at the suggestion of Satan has been operating through the
centuries. At last it reaches its fulness in this man. The pervading influence and power of sin
not only provides the atmosphere and environment in which lawlessness can survive, but it actually
molds and shapes a human personality into the measure and stature of itself.
7. There is finally the providential origin of the Man of Sin. To the countless millions of
earth who have maneuvered themselves into the position of accepting a false Messiah by rejecting
the true Christ, "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a
lie" (2 Thess. 2:1 1). The definite article appears before the word "lie" in the original Greek. Anti-
christ is the lie, the masterpiece of Satan. Yet even this does not happen outside the providential
movements of God in the unfolding of His plan. Christ works all things after the counsel of His
own will (Eph. 1:11). Therefore it is reassuring to know that it is Christ who tears away the first
seal that sends the Antichrist forth upon his mission of deception, persecution, and devastation
(Rev. 6:1-2). This means that God is ultimately in control, even during that time of trouble such
as the world has never seen.
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST 31
VI. THE RISE OF THE ANTICHRIST TO WORLD POWER
1 . The steps in the rise of the Antichrist to power can be summarized as follows. In general
this order is correct, though there could be features that are out of place, and will be discovered
only as prophecy unfolds in history.
(1) Immediately following the rapture of the Church, Antichrist will be revealed
(2Thess. 2:6-8 ASV). It is then that the restraining influence of the Holy Spirit as wrought
through the Church will cease to operate. The first move on the part of Christ to take poss-
ession of earth is the release of Antichrist by the tearing away of the first seal (Rev. 6:1-2).
(2) Antichrist appears on the scene as an inconspicuous figure, but nevertheless, start-
ing out upon a career "conquering and to conquer" (Rev. 6:1-2).
(3) He makes a treaty with the Jews in his own name (John 5:43), which brings them
into possession of the temple area where they can renew their long discontinued worship
(Rev. 11:1-3). What he gets in return from the Jews no one knows, though it is fairly
certain that money figures in this move somewhere.
(4) Running parallel with negotiations with the Jews is the development of a ten-power
confederacy that at last brings him into complete power (Rev. 13:1; 17:12-13).
(5) This ten-power confederacy results in world power by the middle of the seven-year
tribulation period (Rev. 13:7). All other great powers fall before his march to world power.
This includes the powers in the East and South, though perhaps the Northern power is re-
moved from before him by the immediate judgment of God.
(6) Two mass movements to which he has submitted for three and one-half years finally
result in a break and a change of plans. First, the false religious system of this time is no
longer needed for he has reached supreme power throughout the world. So he destroys this
system (Rev. 17:3, 16-17). Second, a movement of opposition among the Jews spearheaded
by two witnesses is broken. With beast-like ferocity he slays the two witnesses (Rev. 11:
3-13), and inaugurates the great tribulation against the Jews for the last three and one
half years of this period (Rev. 11:2, 7), and extends it beyond to include millions of Gen-
tiles who have believed on Christ (Rev. 7:9, 14). He now appears to be in undisputed
control of the whole earth.
2. The means by which he has risen to world power are many.
(1) Chaotic world conditions, consisting of universal war, famine, pestilence, dis-
location, and distress with no way out have provided an occasion (Matt. 24:6-7; Luke 21:
25-26; Rev. 6:3-8).
(2) Great personal ability energized by Satan enabled him to gain recognition (Rev.
13:2-4; 2 Thess. 2:9).
32 GRACE JOURNAL
(3) The material support from Jewish people, in return for religious privilege provides
the material help (Rev. 11:1-3).
(4) In addition there is the influence and aid of apostate religion.
(5) Superhuman power communicated by Satan is especially important (2 Thess. 2:9;
Rev. 13:2).
(6) Last but not least, is the divine permission and providential control from heaven.
God sends the strong delusion in the person of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:11), and it is Christ
who holds the seven-sealed book in His hands and under His control and direction tears a-
way the seal that sends Antichrist forth (Rev. 6:1-2) .
3. The chronology of Antichrist's rise to power is clear as to order though not as to exact
dates.
(1) The revelation of the Antichrist to the world comes immediately following the rap-
ture of the Church (2 Thess. 2:7).
(2) The negotiations with Israel constitute the next major event (John 5:43) , though
perhaps this may not be the next event in time. But these negotiations mark the beginning
of Daniel's seventieth week.
(3) Coronation as the supreme monarch of the world comes at the middle of this seven-
tieth week of years (Rev. 13:7).
VII. THE PERIOD OF SUPREME WORLD POWER
1 . The death of the two witnesses marks the breaking of the covenant with the Jewish nation
and the beginning of world-wide persecution against the nation of Israel (Rev. 11:1-7; 12:6, 14;
13:7).
2. The temple worship now stopped, he deifies himself and demands that divine honors and
worship be paid to him (2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 13:14-15). He orders a huge image of himself made
and moved into the temple area and divine honors paid to it (Rev. 13:14-15; Matt. 24:15). In the
eyes of the godly Jew this constitutes the abomination of desolation.
3. By three different means he is able to secure universal worship for himself . By means of
his great personal ability and attraction he arouses the hero-worship instinct of men (Rev. 13:3-4).
He makes a personal display of superhuman powers such as causing fire to come down from heaven
and making the image speak (Rev. 13:12-14). By means of economic and military sanctions he
compels men under penalty of death to do him homage (Rev. 13:15-17). He is so successful that
"all that dwell in the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of
life" (Rev. 13:8).
4. Since many of the Jews will resist him, he becomes the persecutor and prevails over them
for three and one-half years (Rev. 11:2-3, 7; 12:6, 16; 13:5-7; Matt. 24:15, 21). So intense and
THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE CONCERNING THE ANTICHRIST 33
severe becomes this persecution, that if it were not for the immediate interference of the Lord in
behalf of His people, they would be annihilated (Matt. 24:22) .
5. At the very outset of this last three and one-half years, Antichrist destroys the apostate
Church. Now that he has attained his goal, he no longer needs this false religious system. Under
the direction of the ten confederated kings, her wealth is confiscated, her system is destroyed, her
support is withdrawn (Rev. 17:16-17).
6. At last, this superman has reached the pinnacle of all earthly power, religious, economic,
and military. All shall worship him (Rev. 13:8), none can buy or sell without his sanction (Rev.
13: 17), and there is no one who is able to make war with him (Rev. 13:4) .
7. At last, the ambition of Satan has been achieved in that creatures turn their worship toward
him, and the proposal of Satan to Eve in the garden of Eden has been achieved, namely, "Ye shall
be as gods" (Rev. 13:4), for men are now giving reverence to Antichrist as though he were God.
VIII. THE DOOM OF THE ANTICHRIST
1 . The judgment of God upon the kingdom of Antichrist comes in two phases. The fifth angel
poured out his bowl of wrath upon the throne of the Beast and his kingdom was full of darkness
physically, morally and spiritually (Rev. 16:10-11). Though plagued with pain, the followers of
the Beast gave evidence that they were confirmed in their sin and apostasy and therefore the fit
subjects for final destruction. For they blasphemed the God of heaven. The great city Babylon,
the center of the political and commercial interests of the world was destroyed (Rev. 18: 1-24) . In
one hour this vengeance falls upon this city and is left an utter desolation. While this happens
some time near the end of the seven years of tribulation, it is not the absolute end, for Antichrist
yet organizes a campaign against Jerusalem, known as the battle of Armageddon (Rev. 16:12-16)
at which time he is personally destroyed at the coming of Christ.
2. The rising pride and arrogance of this monarch leads him to plan a campaign against the
Lamb of God himself (Rev. 17:14a; 19:19). It is possible that his return from death, or the healing
of the death wound (Rev. 13:3), together with other exploits has given such overweening pride
that he imagines now that he can ascend the heavens and defeat Christ. The remnant of Jews
finding refuge in Jerusalem seems to him to be the first object of his hatred. So while in conflict
with them, Christ breaks through the clouds of heaven on His white charger and streams toward
the center of conflict. With the sword of his mouth (Rev. 19:15), His almighty word, he breaks
the power of Antichrist (2 Thess. 2:8). With the brightness of His coming, he demonstrates that
Antichrist has deceived his followers, and he is deserted on the field of battle (2 Thess. 2:8), and
all his armies are smitten into the dest (Rev. 19:21). Both the Beast and the False Prophet are
taken alive and cast into the lake of fire forever (Rev. 19:20; 20:10). This brings his meteoric
career to its end .
DOCUMENTATION
1. Pentecost, J. Dwight. Things to Come. Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Co., 1958. P. 338.
Ryrie, C. C. Biblical Theology of New Testament. Chicago: Moody Press, 1959. P. 351.
34 GRACE JOURNAL
2. McClain, A. J. The Greatness of the Kingdom. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1959. P. 453.
3. Pentecost, og. cU., p. 334. "The Bloody and Deceitful Man (Ps. 5:6), and Wicked One
(Ps. 10:2-4), The Man of the Earth (Ps. 10:18), The Mighty Man (Ps. 52:1), The Enemy (Ps.
55:3), The Adversary (Ps. 74:8-10), The Head of Many Countries (Ps. 110:6), The Violent
Man (Ps. 140:1, The Assyrian (Isa. 10:5-12), The King of Babylon (Isa. 14:2), The Sun of the
Morning (Isa. 14:12), The Spoiler (Isa. 16:4-5; Jer. 6:26), The Nail (Isa. 22:25), The Branch
of the Terrible Ones (Isa. 25:5), The Profane Wicked Prince of Israel (Ezek. 21:25-27), The
Little Horn (Dan. 7:8), The Prince that shall Come (Dan. 9:26), The Vile Person (Dan. 11:21),
The Willful King (Dan. 11:36), The Idol Shepherd (Zech. 1 1: 16-17), The King of Fierce Coun-
tenance (Dan. 8:23), The Desolator (Dan. 9:27).
4. McClain, A. J. "Biblical Eschatology,"(Unpublished notes), Grace Theological Seminary. Man
that shall die (Ps. 51:12), The Terrible One (Isa. 29:20), "thy seed" (Gen. 3:15).
5. Andrews, S.J. Christianity and Antichristianity. Chicago: Moody Press, 1898. Pp. 251-263.
6. lhid., pp. 119-168.
BOOK REVIEWS
THE FUTURE LIFE. By Rene Pache. Translated to preach the Gospel, he concludes with these
by Helen I. Needham. Moody Press, Chicago, words, "Let us surge forward along the paths
1962. 376 pp. $4.95. marked out by William Carey, Hudson Taylor,
John G. Paton, and the many other great pioneers,
Dr. Rene Pache, President of theEmmaus Bible who were pushed irresistibly on by the call of the
School in Lausanne, Switzerland, is well known multitudes destined to eternal perdition." Also
in American evangelical circles, having lectured the phrase on page 324: " . . .to deliver man from
in schools in this country. the perdition where his sin is dragging him."
This present volume is a sequel to his book on
the "Return of Christ" published over a decade
ago. Dr. Pache, although proficient in English,
writes in h i s mother tongue, which is French.
His books have made a major contribution to the
premillenial and evangelical literature in French-
speaking areas — France, Belgium and Switzerland.
The influence of his writings has also been felt
in French-speaking Africa, where reading believ-
ers and Bible students have so few evangelical
helps on Biblical subjects. It is in these areas of
Europe and Africa, where theological volumes
following the premillennial interpretation of the
Scriptures are sadly lacking, that Dr. Pache's
works make their greatest contribution.
This book is not written for the American the-
ological student who has access to well docu-
mented eschatological works in English which
are furnished with indices of subjects and Scrip-
ture references. Its primary contribution in
English will be to laymen, Sunday school teachers,
and the like who will appreciate simplicity, con-
ciseness and brevity.
This observation in no way depreciates the
writings of Dr. Pache. He is a lawyer by training,
having received his degree from Lausanne. He
presents the truth in succinct and unequivocal
language. Some of his pages are delightfully in-
teresting.
The book contains some very helpful outlines,
e.g., the ministry of angels on page 107, and
the names of Satan on page 121 . The chapter on
"The Occupation of the Dead," extending to
thirty pages, is interesting and enlightening.
This should prove to be a very helpful volume
for all who desire to have the doctrines of the
future life presented in brief, clear and concise
form .
ORVILLE D. JOBSON
Winona Lake, Indiana
HOLY GROUND. By Douglas M. White. Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, 1962. 144 pp. $2.50.
This is the second volume in the Evangelical
Pulpit Library. The author, pastor of First Bap-
tist Church in Bassett, Virginia, has done a fine
job of presenting and applying the spiritual truths
contained in the historical portions of the Book of
Exodus.
It's a gem. I strongly suspect that the mater-
ial in this book has been preached; if not, it is
nevertheless preachable. The flavor of the book
is pastoral, and intensely practical. Unlike many
theological books, this one could... and should
. . .be read by lay people.
It is not an easy task to translate a treatise Much deep truth is presented, but it is also
such as this, but Miss Needham has done a com- clear as a Bahama sea. Paragraphs are short,
mendable work. In many places the force of the well-written in "Americanese, " and demonstrate
original language is retained. For example, on real effort in study on the part of the author. Illu-
page 323 where eternal perdition is considered strations are homey and apt, such as this one a-
as one of the most powerful motives to impel us bout Pharaoh's desire that the Israelites leave their
35
36
GRACE JOURNAL
cattle in Egypt while they went to worship: "If a
man leaves his cows in Egypt it will only be a
matter of time before he will be back in the stable
himself."
The author makes good use of poetry, which
is freely interspersed. Verse selected is simple,
well-chosen, and spiritually excellent.
Another help is the outlining of the chapters
into sensible and thoughtful sections. The topics
consist of the very words of the Scripture. This is
not a verse-by-verse exposition, but a demon-
stration of the movement from "Out of the Water"
(Chapter I) to a place "In the Top of the Mount"
(Chapter XII).
A few technical errors were noted. Some
words misspelled were "devine" on p. 21, "bares"
on p. 89, and "superceded" on p. 137. Also, on
p. 116 the last two lines of type are reversed.
Some day I hope to write a book like this.
DEAN RISSER
Margate, Florida
HANDBOOK OF PREACHING RESOURCES FROM
ENGLISH LITERATURE, by James Douglas Robert-
son. The Macmillan Company, New York, 1962.
268 pp.
This book should provide an excellent source
book for those whose sermons are characterized by
sameness, resulting in dullness. Most ministers
have very little background in good literature and
especially English literature. This book is a com-
pilation of quotations, illustrations and poems
arranged according to subject as well as author
and sources. I heartily recommend it as a valu-
able reference work in providing "windows" for
sermons.
Some of the authors quoted are Shakespeare,
Chaucer, Kipling, Bunyan, Dickens and Browning
as well as some more recent writers such as C.S.
Lewis and T.S. Eliot. The practical value of the
choice of material is commendable.
GLENN O'NEAL
Talbot Theological Seminary
TREASURE IN EARTHEN VESSELS. By James M.
Gustafson. Harper & Brothers, New York. 141
pp. , $3.50.
Gustafson, Yale Divinity School associate
professor in social ethics, has produced an al-
legedly nontheological ecclesiological study
based on "the light of social thought." Main em-
phasis is on "the church as a human community";
not as the body of Christ. Gustafson disregards
the spiritual role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in
the church, considering Jesus Christ as a mere
'"totem symbol"1 of the Christian community (p.
44).
Chapters 1-3 — dealing with the church as a
human, natural and political community — are the
best part of the book. Those topics are readily
adaptable to sociological investigation. The last
five chapters show a conflict between Gustafson's
religious and social philosophy, especial ly so in
chapters 7 and 8.
Treasure m Earthen Vessels is a pedantic
compendium of subjective impressions cloaked in
intellectual jargon that is often dull. The church
organization described by Gustafson is an earthen
vessel but not a treasure. This book shows that
as the body of Christ the church cannot be defined
satisfactorily in sociological platitudes. Gustaf-
son also demonstrates that the study he undertook
cannot eliminate theology completely. Nor can
Christ be shut out!
Borrowed from 2 Corinthians 4:7, the title, in
view of the Bible context, is a misapplication of
Scripture designed to sell a manuscript to a pub-
lisher, probably, and to catch the public eye.
The three-page index to the book is quite super-
ficial from these angles: Many important topics
BOOK REVIEWS
37
discussed in detail in scattered parts of the book
are ignored in the index. Other subjects are
listed with only single page references. Often
the index page references reveal scanty discussion
of the topic concerned whereas longer treatment
is not indicated in the index.
Absence of even a brief selected bibliography
diminishes the value of Gustafson's study. One
has to thumb through tedious footnotes to discover
the books the author refers to in his book. Even
so, titles mentioned in the footnotes consistently
omit publisher names, so that readers seeking to
track down Gustafson's references could have re-
search problems.
BENJAMIN A. HAMILTON
Grace Theological Seminary
COMMUNISM AND CHRISTIAN FAITH. By
Lester DeKoster. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962. 158 pp. $3.50.
Here is a useful and valuable introduction to
the subject. The book has several strengths. It
sketches the life of Marx; it uses an analogy that
describes the rudiments of the conflict; it shows
the folly of trying to refute the Marxists' argu-
ments on their own ground; and it offers a sound
comparison between Christianity and Communism
as religions. In addition, the book offers a read-
ing list which serves as a helpful guide to any
further study of the subject.
Probably the most serious weakness of the
book is its presupposition, Reformed theology.
Its section on a Christian social order draws far
more from Augustine and Calvin than from the
Apostles Paul and John. The book views Christ-
ian anti-Communism more in terms of the Golden
Rule than in terms of the Great Commission . It
shows the kinship between Marxist materialism
and capitalist materialism but hesitates to make
a biblical application.
Some of its suggestions deserve serious
thought, however. Our food surpluses in the
presence of a starving world are indeed a scandal.
Again, the believer had better remember that his
anti-Communism has little in common with pop-
ular anti-Communism . On balance, the book is
worth buying .
ROBERT G. DELNAY
Central Conservative Baptist Seminary
THE SHEPHERD OF THE STARS. By Charles A.
Trentham. Broadman Press, Nashville, 1962.
172 pp., $2.95.
The author of this book is the dean of the
School of Religion of the University of Tennessee.
His book is a commentary in the popular style on
the Colossian epistle. It seeks to make an appeal
to the modern mind by comparing our space-age
problems and perplexities with the elaborate an-
gelology of first century Colosse. The two per-
iods are said to be similar since both are con-
cerned with what lies beyond the limits of earth.
This comparison may be a trifle overdrawn, es-
pecially when a supporting argument that is used
is that Colosse was soon to be destroyed by an
earthquake, and our civilization is likewise
threatened by nuclear destruction. The compar-
ison is hardly valid, since the citizens of Colosse
were utterly oblivious to the impending disaster
and this can hardly be compared to our society,
which is all-too-conscious of the fearful possi-
bilities of war. However, little space is devoted
to this analogy, and the 28 brief expository chap-
ters are well worth reading.
The book, while not attempting to explain
every verse, nevertheless does not avoid all the
difficult passages. Especially lucid are the ex-
planations of 1:15 and 1:19 (the "firstborn" and
"fulness" passages).
The author's scholarship is evident throughout,
but his use of technical language and Greek words
is never that which would discourage the un-
trained reader. There is an especially good chap-
ter on the Christian use of music and another upon
the relation of forms and ordinances to true wor-
ship.
38
GRACE JOURNAL
Perhaps the chief value of the work is its
wealth of fresh illustrative material. The min-
ister will find here many usable quotations which
will aid in his sermon preparation.
WENDELL E. KENT
Roanoke, Virginia
CHRIST IN YOU. An Exposition of the Epistle
to the Colossians. By Herschel H. Hobbs. Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, 1961. 128 pp., $2.50.
In this work the author compares the Apostle
Paul to a general whose aim is to defeat the en-
emy (Gnosticism in this case) and emerge with a
victorious army that can never be defeated. The
first four chapters he devotes to an exposition of
Paul's initial "sword-thrusts" against the enemy.
He then proceeds, by careful exegesis, to show
Paul's efforts as a wise warrior to repair the dam-
age already done to his ranks by the false teach-
ings of Gnosticism. Having then rallied his forces,
Paul is pictured as directing his "troops" through
maneuvers in both war and peace, thus demon-
strating the need for true soldiers for Christ at all
times.
Hobb's work shows evidence of careful re-
search and clear understanding of the original
language. As the first volume in a proposed ser-
ies of small commentaries called "TheEvangelical
Pulpit Library," this work is an excellent begin-
ning.
WENDELL E. KENT
Roanoke, Virginia
IS CHRIST DIVIDED? by Lesslie Newbigin. Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich .
1961. 41 pp. A FAITH FOR THIS ONE WORLD?
by Lesslie Newbigin. Harper & Brothers, New
York, 1962. 128 pp. $2.75.
As the titles of these two little books make
clear, Bishop Newbigin's burden is that the church
divided is a contradiction in terms, that the unity
spoken of by the Lord Jesus must be realized con-
cretely. In accordance with his view of the unity
of the church, he is serving, after many years as a
bishop of the Church in South India, as General
Secretary of the International Missionary Council.
Certain things must be made clear from the
start. As far as this reviewer is concerned, the
reality of Newbigin's faith and commitment are
not open to question. Nor do we dare minimize
the problem to which he addresses himself, nor the
cogency of many of his arguments. However much
we may disagree with him (as this reviewer does),
this man deserves a hearing.
j_s Christ Divided? is a sort of expanded tract.
In four brief chapters, based upon John 12:32,
John 17:22-23, and Mark 13:6-10, Newbigin ar-
gues passionately for the universality of the gos-
pel appeal, but points out that the appeal is muted
by the scandal of division. On the analogy of a
world of shrinking dimensions, he shows that "pro-
pinquity is not unity." Only in Christ is there a
real unity. A "body" is not an "ideal or meta-
phorical" thing, but must be visible. Separation
on the basis of the teaching of men is the sin of
the carnal Corinthians. "These divisions are con-
trary to His will," and "we must repent of them."
"Being children of God must mean being — in some
recognizable sense — members of one family" (i-
talics ours). "The Church's mission to the nations
is the clue to the real meaning of world history,"
but it demands a unified church.
The same message, but presented in an en-
tirely different manner, is found in A Faith for
this One World? Since it is an amplification of
the William Belden Noble Lectures (Harvard,
1958), the booklet is scholarlyand extremely well-
written. In the first chapter ("The End of Christ-
endom and the Rise of a World Civilization"), he
points out that while peoples all over the world
are rebelling against domination by Western pol-
itical powers and Western philosophy, they are
simultaneously adopting Western technology to a
degree that is shaping a new world civilization.
BOOK REVIEWS
39
He says, very aptly, "For many in the East the
West stands for three things: war, sex and tech-
nics." The implication (made clear later) is that
the Christian Church must divorce its message
from political, cultural, or social paternalism
based upon a concept of Western superiority.
He then examines three non-Christian attempts
to find a faith for this new world, and finds them
all wanting. Radhakrishnan's search for the core
value of all existing religions in the area of mys-
tical experience ends up by being rather "the neg-
ative unity of tolerance than the positive unity
of love." Toynbee's view, according to which man
must choose the good parts of his multiple reli-
gious heritage, is inadequate because it places
human reason in the position of final arbiter, and
Hocking's attempt to find (somewhat after the
manner of some neo-orthodox thinkers) a dimen-
sion for the acts of God outside history is likewise
the concept of a unique revelation.
In two magnificent chapters on Authority
("The Presuppositions of Christ's Revelation" and
"The Content of Christ's Revelation") Newbigin
finds the authority for Christianity's claims to u-
niqueness and universality in the doctrine of cre-
ation, the doctrine of sin ("mankind is a fallen
race. . .It requires nothing less than a rebirth, the
creation of anew nature, to recognize. . .light. "),
and the doctrine of election (not only to "privi-
lege but to responsibility .") . Clearly stated and
defended are all the historic Biblical doctrines of
the Church: The Deity, Virgin Birth, Vicarious
Death, Bodily Resurrection, and Ascension of
Christ, and so on. The whole is one of the finest
brief summaries of the Christian faith that I know
of.
The implications ofall thisfor missionsare that
the uniqueness of the Gospel and its universality
demand a unified Church. Also, on practical
grounds, Newbigin thinks that the only way in
which young churches on the mission field will
ever attain local autonomy in fact as well as in
claim is in a situation where the old dual rela-
tionship of sending-church to receiving-church is
replaced by a cooperative body where all sending
churches and receiving churchesmeet in equality
and in a common cause.
It is easy to pick holes. While presenting his
own faith with moving simplicity and complete
soundness, Newbigin leaves unanswered the pro-
blem of doctrinal deviation in bodies related to
the World Council. After saying that organiza-
tional unity is not the major consideration, he
makes the tacit assumption that it is in fact a very
important thing. One could go on. But in doing
so, would one have finished the job? It is easy to
be negative, but incumbent on us to be positive.
We can recite ad nauseam what we do not believe
about the unity of the Church, but can we so
clearly state whatwe do believe? Is our concep-
tion merely more of the same, but with doctrinal
positions defined more carefully, or is it some-
thing new? It is high time evangelicals addressed
this problem constructively, not in platitudes
which break down in real situations, but in con-
crete terms.
CHARLES TABER
Hartford, Connecticut
THE MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT. (Selected
writings) by Roland Allen. Wm . B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962.
208 pp . , $ 1 . 65 (paper) .
To those familiar only with Missionary Meth-
ods: St. Paul's or Ours? it may come as a sur-
prise to learn that Roland Allen wrote eleven
books, ten pamphlets, and thirty-two published
articles. The present volume contains, in whole
or in part, seven selections.
In Pentecost and the World, Al len shows the
primacy of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts,
the missionary thrust of His ministry, the mission-
ary impulse He created within men, and so forth.
The best portions are those in which Allen deals
with the Holy Spirit as the source and test of new
forms of missionary activity, and the gift of the
Spirit as the sole test of communion.
40
GRACE JOURNAL
In another brief selection, Allen argues for a
non-professional ministry. He feels that in spite
of all disclaimers, present-day missionaries are
professionals. But this, he says, is dangerous,
for "The missionary group as such absorbs far too
much of the missionary spirit of the church," by
which he means that other members feel absolved
from personal responsibility. Every Christian
should accept his position as a missionary within
his station in life rather than as a distinct pro-
fessional activity.
Again writing of the work of the Holy Spirit,
Allen pleads against the regarding of human
means (what we would call "organization" and
"gimmicks") as de_ facto substitutes for the Holy
Spirit. On the one hand, this places an undue
pressure on the financial resources of the church,
and on the other hand it perpetuates the foreign-
ness of the church on the mission field. He right-
ly insists that the church must "be absolutely
native and obviously and unmistakable free from
our control — not in our speech, but in the eyes
of every native."
One of the longer and more important selec-
tions is The Case for Voluntary Clergy. Here
Allen argues that the entire system of paid, full-
time church workers grew up in prosperous, set-
tled churches, and is not suitable on the mission
field. When only such men are ordained as meet
our artificial standards and can be supported by
the church, there are too few ministers to serve
the needs of people in poorer areas. Thus we see
"parishes" covering such huge areas that no man
can effectively serve them. There are purely ad-
ministrative fictions and monstrosities, hiding the
fact that the church is actually doing nothing in
large areas. Allen's solution is to ordain many
men, applying only New Testament standards.
There would then be in each local group of be-
lievers a number of men ordained for the work of
the ministry, but not paid by the churches. There
is much to be said for this position, at least as
regards the need for more ordained leaders. But
not enough recognition is given to the New Test-
ament teaching on the support of worthy ministers.
In making an overall evaluation, one should
recognize an ambivalence in Allen's thinking.
On one hand, he is clearly influenced by his Ang-
lican background, but on the other hand he in
many places breaks out of this limiting condition
to such an extent that he is no less than revolu-
tionary. Again, in his time (approximately 1910-
1930) he was so prophetic and visionary that al-
most no one heard him. He himself told his son
that he would not be understood nor appreciated
until 1960, and he was not far wrong. The truth
of his main theses has been demonstrated in many
ways. But he also was limited by his time, in
that he failed to foresee such modern develop-
ments as nationalism and the rise of new inde-
pendent states. Allen cannot of course be con-
demned for not seeing these things; he deserves
rather to be highly commended for what he did
see that no one else saw. But these limitations do
make Allen's work less than infallible. Some
things he has not dealt with, or has dealt with in-
adequately.
One such area is that of the individual mis-
sionary's relationships with the indigenous church
as a person. Allen rightly emphasized the fact
that domination by the missionary was detrimental,
and argued that the missionary should not be in a
position to stifle local initiative. But this purely
negative emphasis resulted in the missionary's
being totally excluded from the local church.
This might do on a very temporary basis. But some
more adequate positive statement of the relation-
ship needs to be worked out in the actual situa-
tion .
If one keeps in mind this kind of omission or
weakness, which is characteristic of Allen's work,
this book is to be highly recommended. One must
only remember to be guided by Allen in the light
of present situations as they reallyare rather than
as they were in his day.
CHARLES TABER
Hartford, Connecticut
BOOK REVIEWS
41
THE BIBLE, RELIGION, AND THE PUBLIC
SCHOOLS. By Donald E. Boles, Iowa State Uni-
versity Press, 1961 .
In our country, the matter of the relationship
of church and state has seemingly always revolved
around the matter of public education. Many
Christians are concerned about such problems as
federal aid and Bible reading in the public school
systems of America, but few are really informed
on the historical background of these problems.
Here is a book that traces the controversy over
religion in the public schools from the days of
Colonial America to contemporary trends in the
early sixties.
Donald E . Boles is associate Professor of
Government at Iowa State University in Ames.
While no evangelical, he is a competent historian
who presents the facts and lets them stand or fall
on their own merits. Indeed, unlike many his-
torians, Boles reserves his own interpretation of
the facts until the last few paragraphs of the book.
One very valuable item is the thorough docu-
mentation of court cases and decisions which
serve as precedents in disputes over the Bible in
public schools. Twenty-five pages of such docu-
mentation are included at the rear of the book.
The indication of contemporary trends given in
chapter eight is a lucid analysis of "where we
now stand." The distinctions between Roman
Catholics, Jews, and Protestants are clearly
drawn as specific quotations and writings are re-
ferred to.
But what of the relevance of this book to e-
vangelical Christians? No parent, pastor or ed-
ucator can afford to be passive in regard to the
issues which are raised in this book. These mat-
ters affect voting, preaching, educational phil-
osophy and parental relations to the local school
system. Although many will not agree with the
author's final conclusion (as this reviewer does
not), yet we cannot overlook the pertinence of
the arguments presented on both sides. The en-
lightened Christian public can serve God and
country far more adequately than can the unin-
formed .
KENNETH O. GANGEL
Calvary Bible College
HOLDING FAST TO GRACE . By Roy L. Aldrich.
Dunham Publishing Co., Findlay, Ohio. 94 pp.,
$2.00.
Holding Fast to Grace is from the pen of the
distinguished president of Detroit Bible College .
The book deals with the believer's relationship to
law and grace. It clearly shows that just as the
law cannot save, neither can it sanctify. The
believer is delivered from the entire Mosaic sys-
tem, including the Ten Commandments. In this
regard, the writer makes some necessary distinc-
tions between the eternal, moral law of God and
the Ten Commandments. Various chapters deal
with such interesting subjects as: "Confusion of
Law and Grace," "The Law of Moses a Unit,"
"The Mosaic Law Done Away," "The Nature of
the Moral Law" and others.
Some interesting features of the book are as
follows: It is well written, with helpful docu-
mentation for those interested in the writer's
sources of information. Dr. Aldrich has the a-
bility to state his case clearly and to the point.
For that reason, the book is less than 100 pages
in length, and therein lies one of its values; it
can be placed into the hands of laymen who have
problems regarding legalism.
The first chapter is of a devotional nature,
showing how freedom from the law has a practical
effect upon the Christian's life. There are at
least two illustrations in this section well worth
the price of the book.
Holding Fast to Grace is a welcomed addition
to this reviewer's library.
ROBERT K. SPRADLING
Northville, Michigan
42
GRACE JOURNAL
THE LATTER DAYS. By Russell Bradley Jones.
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich. 1960.
196 pp., $2.95.
Russell Bradley Jones is a convinced amillenn-
arian. This book, which was originally issued in
1947 under the title, "The Things Which Shall Be
Hereafter," is the fruit of his "determined attempt,
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to learn
as much as he could about the predictive Scrip-
tures."
To achieve this goal he felt it necessary to
investigate: 1. The chief principle of predictive
interpretation, 2. The identity of the chosen
people of God's future, and 3. The consummating
purpose of Christ.
These he resolves in typical amillennial fash-
ion. E.g. "The so-called spiritual principle of
interpretation, rather than the literal principle,
is correct and has the witness of apostolic prac-
tice." "The eternal people of God are not the
natural seed of Abraham, but his spiritual seed,
Christ and His blood-bought, born-again people
of all races." "These have become heirs through
faith to all the promises and have superseded nat-
ural Israel, which as a nation has been finally
and fully rejected." "The consummating purpose
of Christ is realized in the Kingdom of His dear
Son, in Christ's victory over sin, in His spiritual
reign now in redeemed hearts, and finally in uni-
versal triumph." "Millennialism .. .has no place
in the correct interpretation of the Bible."
There is much in this book that is highly com-
mendable. The author's high view of the inspir-
ation and inerrancy of Scripture and his insis-
tence upon the necessity of salvation by grace
through faith alone for all men are very refresh-
ing. Unfortunately, some of the other features of
the book are not.
In the light of his avowed purpose in writing,
it seems irreconcilable that Dr. Jones should pass
over with complete silence the great volume of
scripture that deals with the restoration of Israel
and her millennial glory. (See Lev. 26:42-45;
Is. 11:1-12 Jer. 26:5-8; Jer. 31:35-37 etc.)
His charge that, "If... the literal ists are
right. . .the way is left open for any sort of man-
ipulation of the predictions that may appeal to
the interpreter," seems, to this reviewer, to be
a charge that could be leveled, with much more
justification, at those who would spiritualize.
Particularly unfortunate is his suggestion that
Premillennialism is the product of the union of
the Judaizers and the Jesuits.
All things considered, The Latter Days is a
clear, comprehensive, and cogent presentation of
the amillennial position. If that's what you are
after, this is the book for you.
ROBERT G. ZIMMER
Syosset, N. Y,
COMMUNISM, ITS FAITH AND FALLACIES.
By James D. Bales. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1962. 214pp. $3.95.
This volume meets a need for a simple,
straightforward discussion of the philosophy and
fallacies of international communism written from
a conservative Christian viewpoint. After defin-
ing communism and describing its philosophic ori-
entation, Dr. Bales, professor of Bible at Harding
College, Searcy, Arkansas, shows the antithesis
of the communist doctrine to Biblical theism. He
traces the development of dialectical and histori-
cal materialism . The communists believe that
change is inevitable, irresistible and progressive.
They do not feel that peaceful coexistence is
perpetual. Their dialectical philosophy allows
them to use subversion, racial minorities, youth
groups and semantic sabotage as legitimate tools
in carrying out their purposes in conquering the
world.
Following evidence that the dialectic is not
the key to reality, Dr. Bales presents the com-
munist concept of class and class struggle, the
BOOK REVIEWS
43
communist doctrine of revolution, and the com-
munist attitude toward religion. He states that
communism is militant atheism and a totalitarian
system which demands the complete loyalty of its
subjects. Communism maintains that religion is a
tool of the ruling class for the perpetuation of its
power and the control of the masses. Communism
is against any religion which teaches the reality
of moral law. It fights religion with anti-relig-
ious propaganda and physical persecution and
wherever possible seeks to use its organizations
and leaders in the accomplishment of communistic
ends.
After a brief but helpful description of the
communist doctrine of morality and the communist
party itself, the author summarizes the basic con-
cepts of communism as follows:
First, atheism. Secondly, dialectical
materialism. Thirdly, that all things are
in a state of change, i.e., nothing is ab-
solute, all is relative. Fourthly, the
class nature of all social institutions, i-
deals, ideas, morality, religion and laws.
Fifthly, the irreconcilability of the class
interests of the capitalists and of the pro-
letariat. Sixthly, the necessity of re-
volution. Seventhly, the necessity and
absolute supremacy of the Communist
Party. Eighthly, the inevitability of
Communism .
He concludes that a communist is a communist
and that he will act like a communist. We should
never expect him to act like a Christian.
The book is a well documented introduction
to the study of communism and could be used with
profit by individuals or groups who are interested
in beginning a serious study of the faith and fal-
lacies of this growing but godless political phil-
osophy .
RICHARD T. MclNTOSH
Cedarville College
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. By F . F .
Bruce. Fleming H. Revel I Company. Westwood,
New Jersey, 1961. 140 pp., $3.00.
This verse-by-verse exposition of the Epistle
to the Ephesians is written by one of the leading
Biblical scholars of Britain. It is a book which
should prove illuminating and stimulating to any-
one interested in a deeper understanding of this
Epistle by Paul .
The author states in the preface that the book
"is intended for the general Christian reader who
is interested in serious Bible study, not for the
professional or specialist student." To that end,
Greek words and phrases, though occurring fre-
quently, are clearly explained. Other matters of
a more critical nature are dealt with lightly.
The first section of this book deals with intro-
ductory materials such as author, time and place
of writing, etc. Included is a section entitled
"For Further Study" in which the author lists
other references which he feels will be useful in
the study of the Epistle. Most of these are by
English authors, however.
Bruce divides the text of the Epistle into two
divisions — as most expositors do. Chapters 1-3
are titled "The New Community in the Purpose of
God;" chapters 4-6, "The New Community in the
Life of the Believers." A very helpful index will
be found in the back of the book.
Though this is not a long exposition, this re-
viewer found it to be one of the finest he has read
on Ephesians. There is no question but that the
author is at home in the original language and,
has thoroughly studied all of Paul's writings. It
is my conviction that this book will be a most
valuable addition to any library.
STEPHEN C. DEARBORN
44
GRACE JOURNAL
DOOYEWEERD AND THE AMSTERDAM PHIL-
OSOPHY. By Ronald Nash. Zondervan Pub .
House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962. 109 pp.,
$2.50.
This book by the philosophy instructor at
Houghton College has two self-confessed purpos-
es. One is to introduce Dooyeweerd to new
readers, particularly in non-Calvinistic circles.
The other is to form a "bridge" between past and
future, more definitive expositions of Dooye -
werd's thought.
The author states that Dooyeweerd's philoso-
phy rests on two basic presuppositions: that the
Sovereign God has established laws in regular
order in His creation, known as the cosmic law
order; that scientific thought has non-scientific
presuppositions which are religious in nature.
Unprejudiced thought doesn't exist. Dooyeweerd
finds the proper starting point in philosophy in the
heart of man, that no heart is neutral but either
worships the Creator or apart of the creation. He
contends that all philosophies that have their
starting point in theoretical thought or autonomous
reason itself are guilty of deifying some aspect
of creation above the others, and that only the
heart of man affords the proper vantage point
from which to view the cosmos.
The cosmic law order consists of fifteen law
spheres beginning with the Numerical Aspect
which is the simplest and concluding with the
Pistical Aspect (faith) which is the most complex.
Each sphere is sovereign, having its own irreduc-
ible laws and nature which cannot be transferred
to another sphere. It is when this sovereignty of
the spheres is invaded that contradictions or anti-
nomies arise.
Mr. Nash presents Dooyeweerd's philosophy
in highly simplified form and points out some of
the difficulties and seeming contradictions he
finds in it. The last chapter is devoted to the
contributions of Dooyeweerd as well as some ob-
jections. The first objection is against Dooye-
weerd's vagueness and ambiguity of language.
The reviewer knows of one prominent philosopher
who has given up in despair of making any sense
out of Dooyeweerd.
An excellent bibliography on the Philosophy
of the Idea of Law is given at the end. Dooye-
weerd is a name to be reckoned with in contem-
porary philosophy and this volume is strongly re-
commended as a si nplified introduction and anal-
ysis.
ROLLANDMcCUNE
Winamac, Indiana
THE VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL IN THE LOCAL
CHURCH. By Gene A. Getz. Moody Press,
Chicago, 1962. 158 pp., $2.95.
From several years of practical experience,
Mr. Getz, a faculty member at Moody Bible In-
stitute makes an interesting contribution to a
needy field, leadership in the Vacation Bible
School (VBS). The dual purpose of this book is to
serve as a text or supplementary guide in Christian
education of Bible col leges and to be a text for per-
sonnel who will conduct a VBS in the local
church. With freshness, clarity, and simplicity
the author takes the reader through the stages of
planning, leading, and following-up of a VBS .
A vital relationship to the ministry of the church
is stressed. Pastors, Christian Education direct-
ors, musicians, teachers and general workers are
all encouraged to serve and their duties are out-
lined. The book is written with organizations of
all numerical sizes in mind. The author writes as
if all churches could have a VBS and each church
should have a succesful program. Throughout the
book, valuable suggestions are given for the small
church .
Part III, entitled "Preliminary Planning" is
considered the best part of the book. This sec-
tion deals with the direct responsibilities of the
VBS Planning Committee. If carefully followed,
BOOK REVIEWS
45
these plans will eliminate much of the haphazard
organization and leadership of the average
school. Among the check lists provided, these
are especially helpful: (1) Spiritual Qualifica-
tions For All Personnel (pp. 57, 58) to obtain
competent leadership; (2) Curriculum Criteria (pp.
59-61) to analyze VBS materials; (3) VBS Calen-
dar (pp. 49-52) to serve as a time and activity
guide. In other parts of the book, an actual pro-
gram for a day of VBS is carefully outlined (Part
V) . The dedication service (p. 93) and the pur-
posed evaluation session are profitable ideas.
The author demonstrates his practical knowledge
of people by several cautions and suggestions,
e.g. the older young people are never required
to march in the daily parade. Everyone who is
interested in VBS will appreciate Appendix I,
"Summary Charts of Age Group Characteristics
and Suggestions" quoted from another author.
Appendix II is a list of VBS publishers and a short
summary of their courses.
The titles of the Table of Contents are con-
cise and. in keeping with the theme of the book,
but the titles of List of Charts could be fuller for
rapid comprehension. Many church groups are
emphasizing Scripture memorization with part or
complete elimination of craft time. A successful
VBS can be conducted in less time than proposed.
Often the manual work and recreation time are
used as escape instruments for unprepared teach-
ers. The reviewer suggests a short section or ap-
pendix on how to lead a soul to Christ and key
verses for soul-winning. A careful study of this
book will revise many poorly organized and feeb-
ly managed Vacation Bible Schools.
JAMES H. GABHART
Winona Lake, Indiana
THE REFORMATION: A REDISCOVERY OF
GRACE. By Wm. Chi Ids Robinson. Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962.
The subject of this review is what its title
purports it to be, namely, a setting forth of the
Protestant Reformation in its true character. The
author, who is a conservative scholar teaching
in a conservative theological seminary, relives
for his readers the exciting experiences of the
sixteenth century when such men as Luther, Zwin-
gli, Melancthon, Calvin, Knox and a host of others
carried the torch for a return to a simple New
Testament doctrine and practice against an empty
ecclesiastical externalism.
In seven lucid chapters Dr. Robinson reveals
the heart of the Protestant movement. In Chapter
One he deals with five of the main slogans of the
movement — Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, Sola Fide,
Sola Scriptura and Soli Deo Gloria — showing
clearly that the reformers emphasized that sal-
vation is by grace alone, that righteousness is
achieved solely through the work of another, even
the Lord Jesus Christ by His substitutionary work
at Calvary, that it is alone by faith that Christ is
received and His salvation possessed, that all
glory for this saving ministry belongs to God, and
that it is only by the faithful exposition of the
written Word of God that the Holy Spirit brings
this Gospel to man.
In Chapter Two the Significance of the Re-
formation is dealt with, namely, that there was
a need for a new discovery of God. He had been
lost in all the maze of ceremony, liturgy, sacra-
mentalism, tradition, works, etcT that had been
imposed upon the church. The Reformation sought
to restore the simple Gospel message of New Test-
ament times and thus there was a new discovery
of God. In Chapter Three the Gospel of the Re-
formation is discussed. It is the Gospel of the
Grace of God apart from the works of the law.
In it Christ shines forth as the all-sufficient Pro-
phet, Priest and King. Chapter Four deals with
The Article of the Reformation, namely, the doc-
trine of justification by faith. In Chapter Five
The Theologian of the Reformation is pictured.
He is none other than John Calvin. He is set
forth both as a Biblical theologian and a faithful
interpreter of Scripture.
In Chapters Six and Seven, respectively, The
Instrument of the Reformation, namely, the Word
46
GRACE JOURNAL
of God and The Root and Fruit of the Reformation, THE SOLE SUFFICIENCY OF JESUS CHRIST,
which is the Evangelical Church, are discussed, By Herbert W. Cragg. Marshall, Morgan, &
each in its own significant sequence. Scott. London, 1961. 110 pp., $2.50.
Throughout the book there are many quota-
tions from the Reformers which aid the reader in
determining just what these men believed. There
is also a liberal usage of mode rn scholarship
which helps to reveal the debt which the true e-
vangelicalism of today owes to the defenders of
the faith in the sixteenth century. The book is
amply documented.
Here is a production of special importance
for this day when there is so much talk about ecu-
menicity and when even the Roman Catholic
hierarchy is re-evaluating its heritage with an
eye toward unification of all branches of Christ-
endom. We need to better understand our spirit-
ual legacy and to be assured that what the Re-
formers bequeathed to us is worth contending for.
The hearts of the true descendants of the Refor-
mation movement will be warmed and thrilled by
this book of solid research and direct appeal .
HOMER A. KENT, SR.
Grace Theological Seminary
The author of this attractive little volume on
the Epistle to the Colossians is vicar of Christ
Church in Beckenham, England. The material
was first presented at the Keswick Convention of
1960.
These concise studies make excellent devo-
tional reading, and provide a clear insight to the
structure and theme of the epistle. It was not
the author's purpose to deal exhaustively with
the text nor to delve deeply into problem pass-
ages. Yet the brief outlines serve well as an in-
troduction to the contents.
The volume will be a real aid to Christian
workers for such uses as prayer meeting talks and
other devotional meetings, as well as for private
meditation .
HOMER A. KENT, JR.
Grace Theological Seminary
BOOKS RECEIVED
THE EMPIRICAL THEOLOGY OF HENRY NEL-
SONWIEMAN. Ed. by RobertW. Bretall. The
Macmillan Co., New York, 1963. 423 pp., $8.5U.
GOOD NEWS: Thoughts on God and Man. By
J. B. Phillips. The Macmillan Co., New York,
1963. 210 pp., $2.95.
Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, New Jersey,
1962. 64 pp. each, $1.00 each, paper.
TRIUMPHANT IN TROUBLE: STUDIES IN
I PETER. By Paul S. Rees. Fleming H. Revell
Co., Westwood, New Jersey, 1962. 144pp.,
$3.00.
SERMONS TO INTELLECTUALS. By Franklin PROFITABLE BIBLE STUDY. By WilburM. Smith.
H. Littell. The Macmillan Company, NewYork, Rev. Ed., W.A. Wilde Co., Natick, Mass. , 1963.
1963. 160 pp., $3.95. 166 pp., $2.95.
THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC PRAYER. Ed. by ACTS, LIFE IN ACTION. By Roy L. Laurin.
Roger Geffen. The Macmillan Company, New Dunham Publishing Company, Findlay, Ohio, 1962.
York, 1963. 204 pp., $5.50. 407 pp., $4.50.
NEW FRONTIERS IN THEOLOGY. (Vol. I)
THE LATER HEIDEGGER AND THEOLOGY. Ed.
by James M. Robinson and John B. Bobb, Jr.
Harper and Row, Publishers, NewYork, 1963.
212 pp., $4.50.
THE FINALITY OF FAITH. By Nels F. S. Ferre.
Harper and Row, Publishers, New York, 1963.
115 pp., $2.75.
THE PASTOR'S COUNSELING HANDBOOK.
By James L. Christensen. Fleming H. Revell Co.,
Westwood, N. J., 1963. 180 pp., $3.95.
PREACHING WEEK BY WEEK. By David A.
MacLennan. Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood,
N. J., 1963. 158 pp., $3.00.
REVELL'S BETTER CHURCH SERIES:
HOW TO RECRUIT AND KEEP SUNDAY
SCHOOL TEACHERS. By John R. Scotford.
HOW TO ORGANIZE YOUR CHURCH OFFICE.
By Clara Anniss McCartt.
HOW TO ORGANIZE YOUR CHURCH LIB-
RARY. By Alice Straughan.
THE PSALMS of Sir Phi MpSidney and theCounr-
ess of Pembroke. Edited with an introduction by
J.C.A. Rathmell. Doubleday and Company, Gar-
den City, New York, 1963. 362 pp., $1.45,
paper.
THE FAITH OF A HERETIC. By Walter Kauf-
mann. Doubleday and Company, Garden City,
NewYork, 1963. 414pp., $1.45, paper.
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES, THE NEW CLAREN-
DON BIBLE. By C. K. Barrett. Oxford Uni-
versity Press, New York, 1963.
THE ZONDERVAN PICTORIAL BIBLE DICTION-
ARY. Ed. by Merrill C. Tenney. Zondervan
Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963.
927 pp., XXII maps.
CHRISTIAN EDUCATION FOR THE LOCAL
CHURCH. By H. W. Byrne. Zondervan Pub-
lishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 355
pp., $5.95.
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CHRISTIAN EXPERI-
ENCE. By W. Curry Mavis. Zondervan Publish-
ing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 155 pp.,
$3.00.
HOW TO PUBLICIZE CHURCH ACTIVITIES. By FLESH AND SPIRIT. ByWilliam Barclay. Abing-
William J. Barrows, Jr. don Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1962. 127 pp., $2.00.
47
48
GRACE JOURNAL
THE LETTERS TO THE SEVEN CHURCHES. By
William M. Ramsay. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1963. 446 pp., $4.95, reprint.
THE TITHE IN SCRIPTURE. By Henry Lansdell .
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963.
166 pp., $2.95.
HOW WE GOT THE BIBLE. By Neil R. Light-
foot. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich. ,
1963. 128 pp., $2.50.
CULTS AND ISMS. By Russell P. Spittler. Baker
Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962. 143 pp.,
$2.95.
EXPOSITORY PREACHING WITHOUT NOTES.
By Charles W. Koller. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1962. 132 pp., $2.50.
ANOTHER LOOK AT SEVENTH-DAY ADVENT-
ISM. By Norman F. Douty. Baker Book House,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962. 224pp., $3.50.
WORDS AND WONDERS OF THE CROSS. By
Gordon H. Girod. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1962. 154pp., $2.50.
NEW TESTAMENT COMMENTARY: PHILIP-
PIANS. By William Hendriksen. Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1962. 218 pp.,
$5.95.
THE HOME FRONT OF JEWISH MISSIONS. By
Albert Huisjen. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1962. 222 pp., $3.95.
THE LAST JUDGMENT IN PROTESTANT THE-
OLOGY FROM ORTHODOXY TO RITSCHL. By
James P. Martin. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 214 pp., $4.00.
THE SPIRIT OF HOLINESS. By Everett Lewis
Cattell. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1963. 103 pp., $3.00.
A CONCISE EXEGETICAL GRAMMAR OF NEW
TESTAMENT GREEK. By J. Harold Greenlee.
Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963.
3rd rev. ed., 82pp. $1.25, paper.
THE REFORMATION: A REDISCOVERY OF
GRACE. By William Childs Robinson. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich, 1962. 189 pp.,
$5.00.
THE MINISTRY OF THE SPIRIT. By Roland Allen,
ed. by David M. Paton. Wm. B. Eerdmans, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1962. XVI & 208 pp., $1.65,
paper.
IN THE MIDST. By G . Don Gilmore. Wm. B.
Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 100 pp.,
$2.50.
FOCUS, THE CRY FOR BREAD, By Anna J.
Littell. Moody Press, Chicago, 1962. 153 pp.,
$2.95.
INDEPENDENT BIBLE STUDY. By Irving L Jen-
sen. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963. 188 pp., $3.50.
THE SPIRITUAL DILEMMA OF THE JEWISH
PEOPLE. By Arthur W. Kac. Moody Press, Chic-
ago, 1963. 128 pp., $2.25.
HE CAME WITH MUSIC. By Helen Frazee-Bow-
er. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963. 96 pp., $1.95.
DANIEL. By Philip R. Newell. Moody Press,
Chicago, 1962. 199 pp. , $3.00.
MY PURSUIT OF PEACE. By Dorothy H. Pente-
cost. Moody Press, Chicago, 1962. 253 pp.,
$3.50.
THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. By Charles F .
Pfeiffer. Moody Press, Chicago, 1962. 126 pp.,
$ .39, paper.
THE WYCLIFFE BIBLE COMMENTARY. Ed. by
Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Moody
Press, Chicago, 1962. 1525 pp., $1 1 .95.
GRACE
JOURNAL
A PUBLICATION OF GRACE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Winona Lake, Indiana
I
FALL 1963
Vol.4
No. 3
GRACE JOURNAL
A publication of Grace Theological Seminary
VOLUME 4 FALL, 1963 NUMBER 3
CONTENTS
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION
TO THE PRESENT AGE Harry A. Sturz 3
THE JEW Bruce L. Button 16
"TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS" Charles L. Zimmerman 28
BOOK1 REVIEWS 41
BOOKS RECEIVED 47
GRACE JOURNAL is published three times each year (Winter, Spring, Fall) by Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake,
Indiana.
EDITORIAL POLICY: The editors of GRACE JOURNAL hold the historic Christian faith, and accept without reservation the
inerrancy of Scripture and the premillennial view of eschatology. A more complete expression of their theological position may
be found in the Statement of Faith of Grace Theological Seminary. The editors, however, do not necessarily endorse every
opinion that may be expressed by individual writers in the JOURNAL.
SUBSCRIPTION RATES: $2.00 per calendar year; single copy, 75c.
ADDRESS: All subscriptions and review copies of books should be sent to GRACE JOURNAL, Box 397, Winona Lake, Indiana.
Copyright, 1963, by Grace Theological Seminary. All rights reserved.
EDITORIAL STAFF
HOMER A. KENT, JR. JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR.
Editor Managing Editor
HERMAN A. HOYT S. HERBERT BESS
General Review Editor Book Review Editor
JAMES L. BOYER ALVA J. McCLAIN
E. WILLIAM MALE HOMER A. KENT, SR.
KENNETH G. MOELLER PAUL R. FINK
Business Committee Consulting Editors
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT
AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE
HARRY A. STURZ
Assistant Professor of Language
Biola College
In the extant writings of the Ante Nicene Fathers, there are quotations from all of the
books of the New Testament. Of the twenty-six books, Matthew is by far the most frequently
cited. Furthermore, the most frequently used portion of Matthew is that portion (chapters
5-7) now called "The Sermon on the Mount." Today, people who have little or no knowledge of
the Bible or the contents of the Sermon on the Mount associate it with Jesus and seem to feel
that its teaching is the guide for their lives . Most of us have probably had the experience of
hearing an unregenerate person say something like the following: "Oh, I don't need to go to
church, I believe in living by the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. " Someone
has said that if the
proverbial visitor from Mars were to arrive in a characteristic Christian
community, having read the Sermon on the Mount en route, he would be
bewildered. The gulf between the pattern of the Sermon and the pattern
of conventional Christian life is so great that the visitor would suspect he
had read the wrong Sermon or visited the wrong community. Yet if he
were to express this confusion to the members of the community he would
find them bewildered at his bewilderment! *
While the ethics of Jesus are not exhausted within the confines of the Sermon on the Mount
(for example, it does not include His law of Love), nevertheless it is the most concentrated
yet comprehensive portion of His ethical teaching. Because of this and because discussion of
our Lord's ethics generally converges on the Sermon, this paper will also seek its material
at this point. It is not so much the purpose of this paper to analyze the Sermon on the Mount
itself as it is to survey the problem of the practical application of its precepts. There seems
to be no questioning the fact that the ethics of our Lord as presented in the Sermon on the
Mount have wielded a tremendous influence both within and without Christendom.
But how its moral content is to be integrated with the whole of biblical
theology and ethics, on the one hand, and correlated with contemporary
life, on the other, is a central problem.
There are some who take the attitude of the famous archbishop of York, Dr. Magee, who
once remarked that "a Christian State carrying out in all its relations literally the precepts of
the Sermon on the Mount could not exist for a week, " to which a Gifford lecturer appended the
4 GRACE JOURNAL
comment that "as much could be said with equal truth of a Christian individual. " There are
others, however, who maintain that the Sermon is the only divinely -forged pattern of national
and individual survival. In between these mutually exclusive views there is an array of in-
terpretations all seeking to answer the problem of the application of the Sermon on the Mount.
In view of the fact that H. K. McArthur is able to delineate twelve different interpre-
tations of the Sermon on the Mount, many of them radically differing from the others, one is
inclined to agree with the observation that "the Sermon has had to put up with more oppo-
sition, distortion, dilution and emasculation than any other writing in the Literature of the
world. "3 Even among those who are in general agreement as to the literal interpretation of
Scripture and holding to the dispensational approach there are marked differences of opinion
in this matter.
D. J. Pentecost points out that:
The Sermon on the Mount is one of three major discourses spoken by the
Lord Jesus Christ in the discharge of His prophetic office while engaged
in His ministry on earth. Concerning the Upper Room Discourse and the
Olivet Discourse there is little divergence among Bible -believing in-
terpreters as to the period of applicability, the persons addressed, or the
principles of action contained in them. There is no such unanimity in the
interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, even among interpreters who
approach Scripture from the same literal and dispensational viewpoint.
In thinking of the age -relationship of the ethical teachings of Jesus, especially as con-
cerns Matthew 5-7, it may be well to consider the remarks of L. D. Huber with respect to
its being called a "Sermon. "
What is a sermon anyway? (he asks) . . . Some note style, some content,
some the situation, some the people involved; but all recognize that basi-
cally a sermon seeks in some way to influence conduct. Although the
Sermon on the Mount hasn't always been called a sermon, its opening
verse seems to suggest such a title; and Augustine so terms Matthew 5-7
in his Latin commentary . . . Actually, little is known of the circum-
stances surrounding Matthew 5-7, the setting of the sermon. Could it be
that this material has been called a sermon chiefly because of its intent
to influence conduct?"*
Then he asks:
To what extent does the Sermon attempt to influence conduct? The
conduct of whom is another question of importance. Here the student
meets a variety of views . "
It is the second of these two questions (i.e., the conduct of whom?) that is the special
concern of this paper. Is its primary aim at the conduct of the Millennial citizens? Is it
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE 5
rather pointed at its original auditors? Does it find its fulfillment in the Great Tribulation?
Or is its teaching directed to the disciples in this Church age? The thesis of this paper is
that there is a definite and intimate relation between the ethical teachings of Jesus and the
present age.
It may be conceded at the outset that this view does not appear to be the most popular in
dispensational circles. James Rand, for example, in an article entitled "Problems in Literal
Interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, " expresses surprise that Bible scholars seem to
shrink from the real problems in the Sermon (i.e., those having to do with its literal in-
terpretation with regard to the Millennium). He is disturbed because those who have written
exegetical studies of Matthew 5-7 have turned "instead to analyses of the sermon which
stress the application of its spiritual principles to believers of this age. " He adds:
Such attempts while productive of great spiritual blessing do not meet the
problems of the literal interpretation of this portion of God's Word to
Israel and the Messianic kingdom. Indeed some decry such as exclusive
interpretation, maintaining that it must be applied not only to Israel but
also to the church. Even such a one as A. C. Gaebelein takes such a
stand. He assails as a false interpretation "that one, which makes the
sermon on the mount exclusively Jewish. "7
Rand continues:
Such statements are caused by evident confusion in the mind of the writer
of the basic hermeneutical difference between interpretation and appli-
cation. To make application of the words of Scripture is to take the
teaching which is developed from a normal, literal interpretation of the
words and to derive from this literal interpretation a practical or spirit-
ual application which may be put to use in the life of the interpreter or in
the lives of those to whom he will divulge the application he has dis-
covered. To illustrate, consider the crossing of the Red Sea by the Isra-
elites. The interpretation is that this is a fact of history. An application
is that it speaks of our redemption by the power of God. It is axiomatic
that there can be only one interpretation but many applications . °
But Rand's illustration does not help with the problem at hand for the Sermon on the
Mount is not "a fact of history" in the same sense as the crossing of the Red Sea. The
Sermon involves teaching which is to be understood and acted upon by men. The interpre-
tation and application of it is much more closely related than in the case of his illustration.
The plan of this paper is to suggest that the ethical teachings of Jesus are for the present
age: (1) because they cannot be restricted to the Millennium; (2) because they are not re-
stricted to the days of the "first advent" or to the days of the "great tribulation;" (3) because
there are good reasons for holding that such is the case; (4) because they are "supradispen-
sational."
6 GRACE JOURNAL
I. THE ETHICAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS ARE FOR THE PRESENT AGE BECAUSE THEY
CANNOT BE RESTRICTED TO THE MILLENNIUM.
The most commonly held opinion among dispensationalists is that the people chiefly con-
cerned in the Sermon on the Mount are those who will be the citizens of the future mediatorial
kingdom which is to be established in the earth. The clear-cut position may be seen from the
following representative statements .
.... The Sermon on the Mount has . . . application . . . literally to the
kingdom. In this sense it gives the divine constitution for the righteous
government of the earth. Whenever the kingdom of heaven is established
on earth it will be according to that constitution.
.... It was delivered at the time in our Lord's ministry when He was
presenting the Kingdom promised of old .... It is the proclamation of
the constitution of that Kingdom, and applies in a particular sense to the
government as it will be when Christ returns to reign. ^
The Bible provides three complete and wholly independent rules for human
conduct- -one for the past age . . . which is known as the Mosaic Law and
is crystallized in the Decalogue; one for the future age of the kingdom
which is crystallized in the Sermon on the Mount; and one for the present
age which appears in the Gospel by John, the Acts, and the Epistles of the
New Testament. *■*■
If, then, the Sermon on the Mount be neither the way of life for the sinner,
nor the rule of life for the believer, what is it? The answer is that the
Sermon on the Mount is the code of laws of the Kingdom of Heaven, which
Kingdom, though for the time being rejected and held in abeyance, will one
day be set up on this earth .... In the Sermon on the Mount we have this
King, Jehovah -Jesus, formally offering the Kingdom to Israel in His own
person. This offer is made in Galilee, for it had been offered through
John the Baptist in Judea and rejected. The Anointed King in this great
discourse plainly sets forth the nature of the proposed Kingdom and the
laws by which He will govern the earth when He re-establishes and occu-
pies the throne of David. ^
.... The Sermon on the Mount .... is teaching concerning the
Kingdom, the magna charta of the Kingdom and all its principles . Such a
kingdom in the earth, with subjects who have all the characteristics of the
royal requirements laid down in this discourse will yet be. If Israel had
accepted the King it would then have come with a righteous nation as a
center, but Christendom is not that kingdom. In this wonderful discourse
the Lord speaks as the King and as the Lawgiver, who expounds the law
which is to rule His Kingdom. "
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE 7
Parenthetically, it should be noted that most of these writers concede that there is a
"secondary application" of the Sermon to the church; however, none of them seem to develop
this.
The theory that the Sermon represents the "constitution of the future millennial Kingdom"
will not stand under examination. In the first place, it lacks proof. It seems to be built
chiefly on the circumstantial ground that Jesus was addressing Jews who were anticipating the
Kingdom and that this discourse is found in a context which relates the genuine "offer" of the
Messianic Kingdom. While this might be sufficient to establish the theory if there were no
evidence to the contrary, an examination of the Sermon itself seems sufficient, on internal
evidence alone, to show that the theory cannot be true.
The age which is characterized by the content of the Sermon does not fit the concept of
righteousness, blessing, and peace which the Scriptures give of the Millennium. As one dis-
pensational writer puts it:
.... It is difficult to conceive how the sermon on the mount can be in-
tended to apply to the Millennial earthly Kingdom promised to Israel.
Persecution for righteousness' sake is hardly likely to take place then.
That will not be a period when men will "reproach" and "persecute" the
saints, and say all manner of evil against them falsely for Christ's sake.
Nor is it likely that conditions at that time will render necessary the
command, "Resist not him that is evil: but whosoever smiteth thee on the
right cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any man would go to law
with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also." Nor
again can it be imagined that there will be false prophets going about in
sheep's clothing, though actually in the character of ravening wolves
(Matt. 7:15). Compare, on the other hand, Paul's warning to the elders
of the church at Ephesus concerning such men (Acts 28:29). Again, to
those who are reproached and persecuted for Christ's sake the Lord
promises a "reward in heaven" (5:11, 12). Rewards in heaven do not
appertain to Israel's Millennial condition. *4
Another team of dispensational writers, C. F. Hogg and J. B. Watson, summarize
the characteristics of the age reflected in the Sermon as follows:
It is sometimes contended that the Sermon on the Mount is to be in
force during the Millennial Reign of Christ. But the characteristic of the
Millennial Age is that therein righteousness will be maintained by ade-
quate power, whereas today these are in opposite camps . In this age there
are two Kingdoms --"the power of darkness" and "the Kingdom of the Son
of God's love." In that age there will be but one, for then "the Kingdoms
of the world" will have become "the Kingdom of our Lord, and of His
Christ" (Col. 1:13; Rev. 11:15).
8 GRACE JOURNAL
It is right, then, to ask what may be gathered from the Sermon itself
as to the character of the age for which it is intended. Let us see.
Evil is dominant—for those addressed are to hunger and thirst after
righteousness.
Strife is prevalent --for they are to be peacemakers.
Corruption is widespread- -for they are to act as salt for the preser-
vation of society.
Moral darkness covers the people --for they are to be light to the
world.
Mammon competes with God for the allegiance of men — for they are
warned that it is not possible to serve both.
Theft, adultery and divorce are excused- -for they are warned against
the thoughts that breed such evils .
Ambition, jealousy and pride rule --for they are told to be poor in
spirit.
Hypocrites gain a reputation for holiness, and unrighteousness tri-
umphs--for they may expect to be persecuted for righteousness' sake.
Wrongs are done without hope of redress -for they are to cultivate
the spirit of forgiveness.
Christ is hated- -for they are persecuted for His sake.
The Devil is free --for they are told to pray that they fall not under
his power.
The Lord is absent- -for they are fasting.
The "world-rulers of this darkness" are in control; the Kingdom of
God is not yet--for they are to pray, "Thy Kingdom come. "
They are a people with heavenly hopes --for they are to look for their
"reward in heaven. "
The age of which the Lord spoke, and the age of His Millennial Reign,
could not be set in sharper contrast, nor can we fail to recognize in it the
characteristics of our own time. &
In the light of evidence such as this it is understandable that D. J. Pentecost, of Dallas
Seminary, also rejects the millennial application of the Sermon's contents. He writes:
It is our conclusion that the presence of evil and evil men, the existence
of poverty, famine, hunger, and need, are all contrary to the predictions
made in the Old Testament concerning the character of the kingdom. Un-
saved will not enter the millennium to run rampant against the righteous
(Jer. 25:31-33; Ezek. 36:22-29; Matt. 25:31-46). We thus conclude that
the Sermon on the Mount cannot be made to apply to conditions on the
earth after the establishment of the kingdom. iD
The certainty of the millennial -mediatorial kingdom is not dependent upon the "futurity"
of the teachings in the Sermon. In fact, it would seem that dispensational lines would be
easier to defend, have fewer inconsistencies, and might make more converts if this untenable
position would be abandoned.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE 9
II. THE ETHICAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS ARE FOR THE PRESENT AGE BECAUSE THEY
ARE NOT RESTRICTED TO THE DAYS OF THE FIRST ADVENT OR TO THE DAYS
OF THE GREAT TRIBULATION.
Though some dispensational Bible scholars make the teaching of the Sermon on the Mount
to be pre -millennial in its contents, some of them still prefer to see no direct application to
the present age. While recognizing that they cannot be millennial they are still determined to
restrict its application to Israel and Israel's earthly kingdom but classify its contents as "the
requirements for entrance into the Kingdom."
Rand, who still holds the "millennial-kingdom-view" of the Sermon, also applies it to the
"entrance -requirement" idea. He says:
Not only does the sermon contain rules for living in the kingdom, but also
it contains requirements or standards for entrance into the Kingdom.
Pentecost seems to give the clearest delineation of this more restricted viewpoint:
While we are in total agreement with the interpretation that the Lord
at His first advent offered a kingdom to Israel which they rejected and
was consequently postponed, we feel that this Sermon on the Mount is to
be connected with the offer of the kingdom rather than with the description
of the kingdom or the kingdom age itself.
.... Our study has shown us that in its primary interpretation the
Sermon on the Mount is directly applicable to those of our Lord's own day
who by their profession in John's baptism were anticipating the coming of
the King and the kingdom. Since Israel rejected the offered King and His
kingdom, the same message will be directly applicable, again, when the
same "gospel of the kingdom" is proclaimed once more to herald the ap-
proach of the King and His kingdom prior to the second advent.
.... it was spoken to those who were anticipating the kingdom to
show them that that which Christ offered to them was actually what the
Old Testament had promised them, that righteousness was the divine re-
quirement for entrance into the kingdom, not the righteousness of the
Pharisees, but the true righteousness according to correct interpretation
of the law, and that those who would were invited to enter that kingdom.
While presenting a secondary application to us, it is primarily applicable
in its interpretation to the nation Israel as they anticipate their King. ^°
The answer to this restricted "kingdom -anticipation" view would seem to be at least
fourfold. In the first place there is the matter of silence. The Scripture has nothing to say
about any such restriction in regard to people or in regard to time; i.e., that the sermon is
limited to Israel, on the one hand, or is confined to the period immediately prior to the
kingdom's appearance, on the other.
Second, there is the matter of ability. If it is difficult to conceive of these teachings
10 GRACE JOURNAL
being fulfilled in the life of a regenerate person empowered by the indwelling Spirit of God,
how could the unregenerate Jew ever hope to manifest such righteousness in his own strength
in order to qualify for entrance to the Kingdom? And, moreover, how would he accomplish
these requirements in a period of time when the Holy Spirit would not be present as He is
during this age? This would be sheer legalism or works and could result in nothing but
hopelessness and despair on the part of the auditors.
Third, there is the matter of celestial reward. Such a viewpoint still leaves unexplained
how the sermon can be restricted to Jews when it speaks of a great "reward in heaven. " Most
dispensationalists see the promises to Israel as linked to "the Land, " in connection with the
coming kingdom, and heavenly blessings as accruing to the church.
In the fourth place there is the matter of hiatus . If all this ethical teaching of our Lord
is restricted in application to the time of Christ's earthly ministry, or is transferred to the
last half of the 70th week of Daniel, it would leave the church without an extensive statement
of ethical principles from His lips. In closing this section an appropriate comment from
Ironside would seem to be in place:
It is not for us to relegate all this to the Jewish remnant in the last days
or to disciples before the cross, though fully applicable to both. But we
discern here "wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ"
(I Tim. 6:3) which we dare not refuse to obey, lest we be proved to be
such as are described in the following verse (I Tim. 6:4): "He is proud,
knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words whereof
cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings." We need to remember
that, though a heavenly people, we have earthly responsibilities, and these
are defined for us in this greatest of all sermons having to do with human
conduct. 19
III. THE ETHICAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS ARE FOR THE PRESENT AGE BECAUSE THERE
ARE POSITIVE REASONS FOR HOLDING THAT SUCH IS THE CASE.
(1) It is the natural way to take the Sermon. This is the obvious inference one receives
from the whole tenor of the Lord's teaching throughout the three chapters as well as of His
ethical teaching elsewhere. It is also suggested by the way in which He addresses His dis-
ciples. On the one hand He is very personal and intimate, addressing with the second person
singular; on the other hand He uses the second person plural, and not infrequently He uses the
universal "whosoever." But He never restricts His remarks in the Sermon to Israel or the
nation of the Jews as such!
(2) The ethics are never formally withdrawn nor is there any suggestion that they should
ever be held in abeyance. This is not only true as far as the content of the Sermon on the
Mount is concerned, but it is also true for the whole Gospel of Matthew and for ethical
teaching throughout the rest of the New Testament.
(3) The example and precept of our Lord furnishes another reason for holding on to His
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PPESENT AGE 1 1
teaching in this realm. Hogg and Watson have a penetrating observation in this connection.
Towards the close of His ministry the Lord spoke "to the multitudes
and to His disciples, saying, The Scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses'
seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe:
but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not" (Mt. 23:1-3).
It is not conceivable that the Lord should come under His own condem-
nation! Rather His peculiar glory is this, a glory not shared by any other
teacher the world has ever known, that He was Himself the embodiment of
the things He taught. In a larger than the immediate sense of the word,
the Evangelists record "all that Jesus began both to do and to teach"
(Acts 1:1). The order is significant. He lived the Sermon for thirty years
before He preached it.
On one occasion when the Jews asked Him, "Who art Thou?" the Lord
replied, "Even that which I have also spoken unto you from the beginning."
His last words to the world again identify Himself with His teaching, "He
that rejecteth Me, and . . . receiveth not My sayings, . . . the word that
I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day" (Jn. 8:25; 12:48). The
Sermon on the Mount is the Lord's self-portraiture; not of His physical
appearance, indeed, but of His character, and, therefore, of the character
the attainment of which is to be the ambition of His people. It is what He
was, and hence is what we ought to be. The subjects of the Kingdom are to
reflect the character of the King.
Long afterwards Peter wrote to persons who had become obedient to
the faith in distant lands: "Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an
example, that ye should follow His steps" (I Pet. 2:21). words which may
be paraphrased, "setting a copy line for you to follow, " since that is the
literal meaning of hupogrammatos , which appears here only in the New
Testament. Those v/ho enter His Kingdom are to keep to the tracks He
made, or, as John expresses it, "to walk even as He walked, " and like the
Thessalonians, are to become "imitators . . . of the Lord." This pattern,
this "copy line", is most clearly discernible in the Sermon on the
Mount.'
2CJ
(4) The Lord's encouragement in the promise of reward and His warnings to heed "these
commandments" and "sayings, " (especially his warning against breaking the least of them
and teaching others to do the same), should give anyone great pause before he presumes to
break, or even ignore these words of our Lord.
(5) The language of the great commission. The Lord had given the teachings, in-
junctions, yes, "commands" of the Sermon on the Mount to the twelve disciples. In the
closing verses of Matthew the disciples are commissioned to make other disciples of all
nations. They are to baptize these disciples and they are to teach them to observe all the
things which Jesus had commanded them.
The responsibility did not stop with evangelization; it included baptism and then continu-
12 GRACE JOURNAL
ous instruction in and continuous keeping of all the will of God. (Note present tense of the
participle didaskontes and the present tense of the infinitive terein which underline the promi-
nence and the persistence that this aspect of the commission was to have.) There was to be
no "selection" of things to be taught and observed. The "all things" is clear and compulsory.
Furthermore, as though He anticipated that some would later seek to explain away the abiding
force of His words, He adds a phrase which indicates that the commission in its completeness
is to be in force for this entire dispensation: "Lo I am with you alway even unto the end of the
age. " Now the consummation of the age has not yet taken place and the Lord has plainly indi-
cated that this commission and His presence to help carry it out is in continuous force "all
the days" till the present age has run its course.
It should be kept clearly in mind that the incentive for "observing all things whatsoever
He has commanded" is not that by doing so one becomes a disciple, or earns salvation, or
wins eternal life, for this is the "free gift of God . . . through jesus Christ our Lord. " The
motivation force or incentive is the desire (wrought in the Christian by the Holy Spirit) "to
walk even as He walked" (I Jn. 2:6), to "walk and to please God" (I Thess. 4:1). This is the
test of our love and the condition of His, even as the Lord said, "he that hath my com-
mandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of
my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself unto him (Jn. 14:21)" ... "If ye
keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's com-
mandments, and abide in His love" (Jn. 15:10). "For this is the love of God," says John,
"that we keep His commandments" (I Jn. 5:3).
Hogg and Watson's comment at this point is:
If not in the Sermon on the Mount, and kindred passages, where are these
"commandments" to be found? Assuredly not exclusively in the Discourses
in the Upper Room. The Gospels must be taken as complementary one of
the other. (Important in this connection are the words of Dr. H. C. G.
Moule in his book Tesus and the Resurrection, p. 17, "I cannot help seeing
. . . the many details in which St. John in his Gospel, takes for granted
the main Evangelic narrative, and passingly and without anxiety, uses his
readers' knowledge of it." . . .) It would be more than precarious to
exclude from the sayings recorded in one Gospel all reference to sayings
recorded in another, and impossible to justify attaching a different
meaning to the identical phrase "all things" in the two passages, Matt.
28:20 and John 15:15, "ye are My friends if ye do the things which I com-
mand you ... all things that I heard from My Father I have made known
unto you, " and, "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I com-
mand you. " The words are the words of the Father, the voice is the voice
of the Shepherd; His sheep hear it and they follow Him" (Jn. 10:27). 21
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE 13
(6) The practice of the apostolic church indicates that they understood the force of the
"great commission" in the manner indicated above. The apostles made and baptized disciples
and followed this with the continuous instruction that had been enjoined by the Lord. The new
disciples persisted continuously in the teaching of the apostles and thus were keeping all
things which Jesus had commanded (cf. Acts 2:41, 42). All this occurred after the birth of
the Church and in the age of grace. The Apostle Paul (not one of the twelve), in Acts 20:27,
reminded the Ephesian elders that he had not shunned to declare unto them "all the counsel of
God. "
(7) This attitude carried right on, without a break, into the period of the Ante Nicene
Fathers. The view of the earliest Church Fathers, as reflected in their quotations and use of
the New Testament, was that the Sermon on the Mount and the ethical teachings of Jesus were
to be applied. They did not have to defend such usage, There was no question in their minds
but that the words of the Lord were to be received and acted upon. As mentioned earlier in
this paper, Matthew was the Gospel most frequently quoted; and the most frequently used part
of Matthew was the portion covering what is now called the Sermon on the Mount.
(8) The teaching of Paul gives additional support for applying Jesus ' ethical teaching to
this present age. The Epistles of Paul with their doctrines (whether theological or practical)
in no wise contradict the teachings of the Savior. There is no difference between the soteri-
ology of Paul and Jesus as imagined by the liberals; nor is there a difference in the ethics of
either as imagined by some dispensationalists. Paul does not teach a different way of sal-
vation. He does not teach a reduced code of behavior. As a matter of fact, in his last epistle,
he calls attention to the inspiration and profitableness of all Scripture for the purpose of
furnishing unto all good works (II Tim. 3:16, 17). In Titus 1:1 he calls attention to "the faith
of God's elect and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness . " In I Tim. 1:4 he
would divert his reader from the things which minister questions and center his attention on
"godly edifying which is in faith. " The most direct passage in which the apostle specifically
enjoins adherence to the ethical teachings of our Lord seems to be I Tim. 6:3, 4. "If any man
teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; He is proud, knowing nothing, but
doting about questions and strifes of words. ..."
That the ethics of Paul are in agreement with the ethics of Jesus may be seen by the fact
that almost every admonition of the Sermon on the Mount is repeated in one form or another
in the Epistles. (See Hogg and Watson's little book for a chapter devoted to the display of
these striking parallels . )
IV. THE ETHICAL TEACHINGS OF JESUS ARE FOR PRESENT AGE BECAUSE THEY ARE
SUPRADISPENSATIONAL.
The synoptic gospels record the statement of Jesus that heaven and earth would pass
away but that His words would not (ou me, emphatic double negative) pass away. It would
seem that His words rise above dispensational boundaries . He tells men that the words which
He spake would form the basis for their judgment. This is true not only with respect to His
words about His own person, and His words about prophetic truths; it is also true with regard
14 GRACE JOURNAL
to His words about ethics. Saving and moral truths rise above, bridge across and outlast
dispensational divisions. This is true of our Lord's teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.
Before the birth of the Church, it was meant for the twelve who heard it during the time when
the Kingdom was being proffered; after the day of Pentecost, it was meant for the early
Church which received it in the apostolic teaching; and, later, it was still meant for the
Church when she obtained it in a permanently recorded form when the inspired Gospel of
Matthew was given to her. No doubt the Sermon will have application in the future, after the
rapture of the Church, when the saints of the Tribulation period will apply its teaching to
themselves.
It may be claimed of the Sermon on the Mount that it is intended for the
guidance of regenerate persons in an unregenerate world. And because
the gifts and empowerment of the Gospel are his who trusts and serves
His Lord, these words of Christ stand. Their revelation has never been
withdrawn: they set forth the true standard of Christian morality. They
describe the conduct produced by the life of Christ in His believing people:
they abide in full moral applicability to us: they are superdispensational
and reveal the moral laws upon which the judgments of the Day of Christ
are founded. Thus they should be studied and taken to heart by the
follower of Christ who would learn of Him who is meek and lowly in
heart
22
DOCUMENTATION
1 . Harvey King McArthur, Understanding the Sermon on the Mount (New York: Harper &
Bros., 1960), p. 105.
2. C. F. H. Henry, Christian Personal Ethics (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., 1957), p. 278.
3. Henlee Barnette, "The Ethic of the Sermon on the Mount, " Review and Expositor, LIII 1
(Jan. '56), p. 24.
4. D. J. Pentecost, "The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount," Bib. Sac. (Vol. CXV, 1958),
p. 128.
5. L. D. Huber, "A Homiletic Study of the Sermon on the Mount, the Ethical Motif in
Matthew 5-7," Southwestern Journal of Theology (Vol. V, No. 1, Oct. '62), p. 65.
6. Ibid.
7. James Rand, "Problems in Literal Interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount, " Bib. Sac.
(Vol. CXII, Jan. '55), pp. 28, 29.
8. Ibid.
9. C. I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible . . . 1917, pp. 999, 1000.
10. E. Schuyler English, ed. , Holy Bible . . . Pilgrim Edition (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1948), p. 1228.
11. L. S. Chafer. Systematic Theology (Dallas. Texas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948) Vol.
V., p. 98.
12. Wm. L. Pettingill, The Gospel of the Kingdom, Simple Studies in Matthew, (Findlay,
Ohio: Fundamental Truth Publishers), p. 58.
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT AGE 15
13. A. C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, An Exposition (New York: Our Hope Publi-
cation Office, 1910), p. 9.
14. W. E. Vine, The Divine Plan of Missions (London: Pickering & Inglis Ltd. ), pp. 105,
106.
15. C. F. Hogg and J. B. Watson, On the Sermon on the Mount (London: Pickering & Inglis
Ltd., 3rd printing, 1947), pp. 18, 19.
16. "The Purpose of the Sermon on the Mount," Bibliotheca Sacra, CXV (April, 1958), p. 135.
17. Rand, op. cit., p. 31.
18. Pentecost, op_. cit., pp. 133-134, 317-318.
19. H. A. Ironside, Expository Notes on the Gospel of Matthew (New York: Loizeaux Bros. ,
Inc., Bible Truth Depot, 1943), p. 44.
20. Hogg and Watson, op_. cit., pp. 12-13.
21. Hogg and Watson, op_. cit., pp. 23-24.
22. Hogg and Watson, op_. cit. , from the jacket of the book.
THE JEW
BRUCE L. BUTTON
Los Angeles, California
Who is a Jew? While this question may seem superfluous at first consideration, it has,
nevertheless, posed a question to both Jew and Gentile down through the ages. Once again this
question has come into prominence. This time it has been raised in the young nation of Israel
as the outgrowth of a request by Oswald Rufeisen, a Polish Jew converted to Catholicism, and
now a Carmelite Monk living in Israel. Rufeisen, now Father Daniel, was converted to Cathol-
icism in Poland in 1942. Since 1959 he has been living at the Carmelite Monastery in Haifa.
Approximately four years ago he applied for citizenship under Israel's Law of The Return,
which, briefly stated, permits any "Jew" to become a citizen of Israel simply upon return to
the land, taking up residence in that land, and making application to the Ministry of Interior
for citizenship, at the same time offering valid proof of being a "Jew. "
Father Daniel is the born son of a Jewish mother. According toHalacha (the legal formulae
on which the foundation of Jewish religious life is based), and also according to every other
Rabbinical interpretation, a person so born is a Jew, even if he apostatizes to Christianity,
Catholicism, or any other religion, or believes in no religion at all. In other words, once a Jew
by birth through a Jewish mother, always a Jew. So here is a Polish Jew named Oswald Rufeisen,
a man who aided other Jews to evade and escape the clutches of the Gestapo during the horrid
years of Nazi domination, asking for citizenship in Israel under the Law of the Return as any
Jew would do. True, he has converted to Catholicism; true, he is a Carmelite Monk; true, he
has had to seek Vatican permission to change his Polish nationality for Israeli Jewish citizen-
ship; but according to the highest Jewish religious code, he is a Jew! He is entitled to citizen-
ship on the basis of his Jewishness. He enters Israel, takes up residence in Haifa, and submits
his application to the Ministry of Interior.
Now he could, under Israeli law, become a citizen in the same manner as a non-Jew. This
would entail his living in Israel for a period of time andthen becoming a "Naturalized" citizen.
But this would not be returning as a Jew under the Law of the Return. Father Daniel desired
above everything else to be admitted to Israeli citizenship as a Jew! The Ministry of the Inter-
ior rejected his application on the ground he was not a Jew! They were ready to accept his
bid to become an Israeli citizen under the Nationality Law (i.e. to become a citizen in the
same manner as a non-Jew), but Father Daniel insisted on his Jewishness and brought suit in
the courts of the Land. As a result, the case reached the highest court of Israel and four out
of five Justices endorsed and upheld the Ministry's and the lower court's ruling, i.e., Rufeisen's
application for citizenship under the Law of the Return was to be rejected. The reasoning of the
court can be summed up as follows:
This article was one of the Bauman Memorial Lectures for 1963, delivered at Grace Theologi-
cal Seminary, February 5-8. Mr. Button is Superintendent of the Brethren Messianic Testi-
mony, Los Angeles, California.
16
THE JEW 17
Presiding Justice Moshe Silberg maintained that the Law of the Return is one of historical
significance, a national law that "must be interpreted in accordance with currently accepted
concepts." He also held that the "one common aspect binding all who live in Zion" is "that we
cannot cut off our-selves from the historical past and we do not reject our fathers' heritage."
"We cannot," he said, "desecrate the name and content of the term Jew." He added, "Accept-
ing a convert as a Jew would mean a distortion of Jewish history. Our new culture in Israel is
but a new addition of our past. Whether religious, non-religious or anti-religious, all Jews
are bound to the Jewish people's heritage." Justice Silberg held that this rejection could be
based on the Law of the Return because it was a secular law. Thus to the question as to
whether Rufeisen was considered a Jew, the answer was "No!"
Justice Moshe Landau gave answer to Rufeisen's claim that Israel was not a theocratic
state and that the term Jew under the Law of the Return had secular rather than religious un-
dertones. Rufeisen claimed he did not give up Jewish peoplehood, but only Judaism, when he
became converted. Justice Landau said if the court accepted Rufeisen's argument that the
state is a product of Zionism and that the Zionist rather than the religious criterion must
prevail, his (Rufeisen's) appeal must fall because Zionist philosophy is against him on that
point. The Justice maintained "one must accept Herzl's viewpoint in rejecting Zionist mem-
bership to a converted Jew. "
Justice Ekiahu Mani concurred with the majority ruling.
Justice Avi Berinson concurred "most reluctantly" with the majority decision and voted to
reject the appeal only on the ground that the Law of the Return, when it contained the rider
"unless he has adopted another religion" rejected Rufeisen as a Jew only on a. technicality.
Justice Conn, in his dissenting opinion said the rider to the Naturalization Law was un-
constitutional and unsuited to a modern State. Thus Justice Conn would have granted Rufeis-
en's request for citizenship as a Jew under the Law of the Return.
Rabbinical circles in this country and elsewhere in the world were quick to point out that
Rufeisen could still obtain Israeli citizenship. Rabbi Balfour Brickner, director of the Union
of American Hebrew Congregation's Commission on Interfaith Activities, said, "It should be
made clear that the decision in no way precludes the possibility of Brother Daniel's becoming
an Israeli citizen. It only says that his application for citizenship cannot be based on the fact
that he once was, or may still consider himself to be, a Jew. This decision should make abun-
dantly clear that, just as all Israelis are not Jews, so all Jews are not Israelis. . .To be a Jew,
is to be a member of a religious and/or an ethnic group. Only in Israel does the word "Jew"
involve nationality. "
Thus the state of Israel has rendered its verdict as to what constitutes being Jewish in a
manner becoming citizenship. And Oswald Rufeisen, now Father Daniel, a Polish Jew con-
verted to "Catholic Christianity" is not worthy to receive citizenship as a Jew under the Law
of the Return. In this sense Israel says he IS. NOT a Jew.
18 GRACE JOURNAL
It might be well to point out here that the writer has, as yet, been unable to deterinine the
extent to which the High Court of Israel investigated the Holy Scriptures to ascertain the Al-
mighty's ideas on this subject. Certainly since Israel's claim to the Holy Land is based in
part on the promises received by the patriarchs from the God of Heaven, He should have a say
in the matter. Should it be maintained that they did consult this authority in that they took
Halacha into consideration, the reply can be made that they merely referred to the Rabbinical
interpretations of the Holy Scriptures. Since much of Halacha is disregarded in other fields
in this day and age (for it, too, is interpreted in accordance with currently accepted concepts,
and is, in part, treated as antiquated and useless) it is doubtful if any of its interpretations
are valid.
Then, too, the matter of constitutional interpretation does not present a reasonable and
solid basis for such findings since this constitution and its interpretation is made in the shad-
ow of the memory of Nazi persecution. And it would be extremely difficult for such to be
otherwise. However, the fact that one Justice reluctantly concurred while recognizing
the rider ["unless he has adopted another religious belief"] only as a technicality which with-
holds from Rufeisen the desired citizenship; and another Justice declared outright that the
rider is unconstitutional; reveals to the world at large that Jewish thought relative to the Jew-
ish rights of Hebrew Christians are changing. The sad part is the other side of the picture.
There is displayed the unwillingness of certain Jewish persons, even those who are skilled
and privileged in dispensing justice, to reason logically when the welfare of the Hebrew
Christian is involved.
Now as to the question of whether Zionism is the foundation for such findings, here again
bigotry plays its part. It is inconceivable that Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement,
could have dispassionately considered the possibility of Jewish people believing in Jesus as the
Messiah and still retaining their Jewish ties and background. Herzl, for all his excellent
qualities, was still a reactionary product of Gentile hatred and persecutions. He accepted the
common Jewish belief that all Gentiles were Christians and all Christians were Gentiles. The
sordid crimes of unregenerate men were blamed on the Church. And the fact that the visible,
local church, and at times the ecclesiastical rulers of the various churches did participate in
Jewish persecution tended to give credence to this belief. Also, European rulers, who en-
couraged anti-Jewish movements, were professing Christians, and this helped to strengthen
the "Gentile is Christian" belief in Herzl' s mind. Thus Zionism would be a poor criterion by
which to determine the Jewishness of a Hebrew Christian.
Since we are here to discuss, in some measure, "The Jew, " and as we would not render
an unjust verdict for our consideration, we would do well at the onset of these discussions to
define in several areas what we, as Christians, believe God's Holy Scriptures teach relative
to the identity of the Jew.
Let us consider the origin of the Jew. We tend to speak of Anti-Semitism when we speak of
hatred toward or atrocities committed against the Jewish community. It is true that the Jew
is a Semite, a descendant of Shem, the son of Noah (Genesis 11:10-26 and 10:21-24). The
word "Semite" is derived from the Hebrew word Shem. But it is also true there is a great
number of other people in the world who are Semites, who are not "Jewish" in any respect.
They not only are not persecuted as are the Jews, but they have in the past and are now at pre-
sent taking part in Jewish persecution. Scientifically, the word "Semite" is a technical term
THE JEW 19
for the Semitic family of languages. From the Biblical standpoint the term "Semite" is also a
technical term for the descendants of Shem who settled the territory of Syria, Chaldea, Persia,
and Arabia, and later in Palestine. Thus the name "Shem, " with reference to Noah, indicates
a family of languages and a family of people.
The association given the name "Shem" by Noah, however, points out a far more important
truth. When Noah, upon awakening from his alcoholic stupor, pronounced his curse and bles-
sing upon his various sons, he credited to Shem a relationship which was apparently lacking
in his other sons. His words, "Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem" (Genesis 9:26), seem
to indicate that Shem desired fellowship with Jehovah. At least the LORD was at this early
time recognized as the God of Shem!
Then, too, the simplicity of the name "Shem" which Noah gave to his firstborn son has a
far deeper implication than would at first appear. The word "Shem," in its simplest rendition,
means "name." It would be, to say the least, a queer name to give one's firstborn unless the
word "name" held a far more potent meaning to the one giving it than it does to us. Noah, a
preacher of righteousness (2 Peter 2:5) found grace in the eyes of the LORD (Genesis 6:8).
When he was commanded to complete the enormous task of building the ark (Genesis 6:12-21),
he obeyed the LORD (Genesis 6:22), and as a consequence, he and his loved ones were saved
from the wrath of the LORD (Genesis 7 & 8; I Peter 3:20; II Peter 2:5) in the destruction caused
by the Flood.
Now constantly throughout Holy Scripture the word "Shem" ("Name") is used with reference
to God. "For my name's sake will I defer mine anger, " says Jehovah to sinning Israel (Isa.
48:9). Men "call upon the name of the LORD" when they realize they are but mortal (Gen. 4:26).
The Psalmist speaks of "those who love thy (Jehovah's) name" (Psalm 5:12).
Moses speaks of a place "where the LORD your God shall cause his name to dwell" (Deut.
12:1 IX Solomon recalls this to Jehovah in the dedicatory prayer for the temple with the words:
"That thine eyes may be open toward this house night and day, even toward the place of which
thou hast said, My name shall be there" (I Kings 8:29).
Even David cried out for safety and salvation with the words: "Save me, O God, by thy
name" (Psalm 54:1).
In the light of Noah's experience with Jehovah and the manner in which the word Shem
("name") is used throughout the Old Testament, I take it that Noah, in calling his eldest son
"Shem" was setting forth a remembrance of all he had received and expected to receive in
"The Name" of Jehovah. Thus Noah's son Shem was known as "The Name" and was a constant
reminder to Noah and his family of God's grace.
Now this is the line from which the Jew has descended. He is, along with certain other
peoples, a remembrance of God's goodness and grace. The fact that the world at large, and
even the Jew himself, ignores this truth, does not alter the fact that even in judgment God is
good, and is seeking what is best for those who trust Him; protecting, providing, dispensing
His grace in all its fullness, that those who trust Him "shall walk, O LORD, in the light of
thy countenance. In thy name they shall rejoice all the day: and in thy righteousness shall
they be exalted" (Psalm 89:15-16).
20 GRACE JOURNAL
Now it would appear that the descendants of such a person as Shem should strive to please
and be a praise to "The Name. " Such, however, has not been the case. Holy Writ records of
Israel:
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you as it is
written. Rom. 2:24 (cf. Isa. 52:5)
Since the creation of Adam and Eve the progress of man has been ever downward. Regard-
less of what the evolutionist would have us believe, men have not advanced ethically or mor-
ally. Ethically and morally the efforts of man have always been in a state of decay and retro-
gression. As to character, the picture of man has always been bleak. Men have never tried
to live up to the standards God set for them. God delineates the cause of this when His pro-
phet declares:
All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned
everyone to his own way. Isa. 53:6.
for men,
Knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy
of death, not only to do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Rom. 1:32.
The descendants of Shem, including Israel, are no different. We need but investigate the
next step in the line of descent to have proof of this .
Abram, the High Father, or as he was later designated by God, Abraham, father of a mul-
titude of nations, was a descendant of Arpachshad the son of Shem. When we are first intro-
duced to him in Holy Scripture, we find him living with his father, Terah, in Ur of the Chal-
dees, and native to that land. He was married, childless, and apparently devoid of personal
purpose; for when his father, Terah, left Ur, he took Abram with him. The word yikaeh
"take" seems to imply taking with the idea of possessing and using for one's self interests
(Gen. 8:20, 16:3, et al). This would fall in line with what we know of the family life of that
day. Abram seemed content to follow after and submit to the will of his father. Even after
his father's death in Haran, it took the spoken direction of the Lord to send Abram on his way
to what was then, as far as Abram was concerned, an unknown destination (Gen. 12:1; cf. Heb.
11:8).
Abram gave heed to God's direction. At the age of seventy-five, he departed from Haran
(Gen. 12:4).
Now Abraham had a relationship with God which was peculiar and outstanding in the Old
Testament. He was called by God, "Abraham, my friend" (Isa. 41:8, 2 Chron. 20:2). The
word used to designate this relationship does not come from the Hebrew word re* , which
means "a companion." Instead, its root is in the word 'dhav , which basically means "to
desire" or "to breathe after," and it includes the idea of one who is beloved intimately. Thus,
Abraham occupied a special place in the love and affection of God. Apparently he returned this
THE JEW 21
love and affection. God spoke to him, directed him, protected him, and prospered him. We
do not find this particular phrase used by God in connection with any other man in the Old
Testament.
You would not expect "the friend of God" to give evidence of any of the weaknesses which
beset the average man. However, when we investigate Abram's life, we find that he was beset
by the same weaknesses which trouble us all. In Genesis 15 we find Jehovah dealing with
Abram in a vision. Abram presented his perplexing problem to the LORD. He had no son who
would be his heir. Abram said:
Behold to me thou hast given no seed, and lo,
One born in my house is to be mine heir.
Gen. 15:3
And Jehovah replied to Abram:
This man shall not be thine heir; but he
that shall come forth out of thine own
bowels shall be thine heir.
Gen. 15:4
As Abram was brought forth abroad, Jehovah spoke to him:
Look now toward heaven, and count the Stars,
if thou be able to count them; so shall thy
seed be.
Gen. 15:5
The Scriptures state:
And he believed in the LORD: and He counted
it to him for righteousness.
Gen. 15:6
In other words, in the face of an apparently hopeless situation, upon the assurance of Jehovah,
Abram was ready and anxious to trust in His promise even though he was eighty-four or eighty-
five years of age and his wife, Sarai, ten years younger. However, in a very short time this
strong faith was to be bolstered with human ingenuity. No longer would they wait for the pro-
mise of God. . They would attempt to accomplish it in their own strength. So Sarai sent her
Egyptian hand maid, Hagar, to Abram. She conceived and bore a son who was named Ishmael.
For the next fourteen or more years, consternation reigned in the dwelling of Abram as a con-
sequence of this faithlessness.
Abram's faith became steadily weaker and when next the LORD dealt with him on the sub-
ject of a son, he gave evidence of the weakness of his faith. Even more important, he gave
evidence of why his faith had reached this point. This High Father who was now designated
by God as Abraham, Father of a multitude of nations, together with his wife Sarai, who had
22 GRACE JOURNAL
now been given the name Sarah, or Princess, by God, revealed their human nature. When the
LORD again assured him he would have a son by Sarah, Holy Scripture records:
Abraham fell upon his face and laughed and said
in his heart; "shall a child be born unto him that
is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah that is
ninety years old, bear?"
Gen. 17:17
And Abraham said unto God: "Oh that Ishmael might live before Thee!"
Human nature always displays itself in two ways: doubt as to the power of God; and desire
to fulfill selfish interests. Here is Abraham, the man who "believed in the LORD: and He
counted it to him for righteousness;" here is the friend of God, laughing in derision at the
promise of THE LORD. "In his heart" is the location of his unbelief. His selfish desire was
that Ishmael, the tangible, might live before God. Doubt and selfish desire is what we find in
Abraham, the man to whom the Lord had imputed righteousness because of his belief, his
faith. The fact that he was a descendant of Shem, "The Name, " does not change the matter,
for men do not receive the power to become the sons of God because of their blood line. Men
do receive from their forefathers the ability to doubt. If Abraham passed on any quality to
his descendants, the Jewish people, it is the ability to question and doubt the miraculous power
of God This human degeneration has invaded every field of Jewish life. Today it is expressed
most strongly in Jewish skepticism concerning the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus. Thus, while
Abraham is classified as "righteous" because he believed in the LORD, his descendants, in
going about to establish their own righteousness, display their doubt concerning the miracu-
lous power of God and have not (and seemingly will not) submit themselves to the righteous-
ness of God (Rom. 10:5).
This is not the only area of doubt in Jewish life. There is another area which is displayed
in the person of Isaac, the son of Abraham. Isaac, meaning "laughter" in the Hebrew, was
ever confronted with his father's and mother's lack of belief in the power of the LORD. His
name was a constant reminder of this, for while Sarah said on the occasion of the birth of
Isaac ("laughter"):
God hath made laughter for me; everyone that
heareth will laugh on account of me
(Gen. 21:6),
the name is more than just the oommemoration of joy at the birth of a son. It is also a re-
minder of Abraham's and Sarah's lack of faith in the power of the LORD to accomplish that
which was humanly impossible. I would imagine that Isaac never heardhis name without being
reminded of his parents' deficiency and also of the faithfulness of the LORD to effect that which
He has promised.
There was an incident in the life of Isaac which should have had the effect of strengthening
this faith in the power of the LORD to protect, for it was in this area that Isaac principally
doubted. The incident was the offering of Isaac on the altar by Abraham on the Mount in the
THE JEW 23
land of Moriah, It was here that Isaac knew by actual experience the protection of THE LORD.
To all intents and purposes he was as good as dead until the ram was provided as his sub-
stitute. The knowledge of his parents' failure to keep strong faith in the LORD, together with
this experience as a reprieved altar sacrifice, should have served as a foundation for Isaac's
complete and unwavering faith in the ability of this God of Power to provide protection for
those who trust Him. However, the actual story of Isaac's faith is quite different.
In the twenty-sixth chapter of Genesis, Jehovah appeared unto Isaac and ordered him to
remain in the land of Gerar:
Sojourn in this land and I will be with thee
and will bless thee.
Gen. 26:3
The Jehovah recounted the blessings and the reasons for them. Immediately thereafter we
read:
And Isaac dwelt in Gerar. And the men of the
place asked him of his wife; and he said: "She
is my sister"; for he feared to say: "My wife, "
lest the men of the place should kill me for
Rebekah, because she is fair to look upon.
Gen. 26:7
Here is Isaac, a man who knew the power of God to protect, resorting to the lie that he
might escape a supposed danger. God had but recently spoken to him, assuring him of bless-
ings and protection. But in the face of uncertainty, Isaac was a son of his father; he displayed
his human nature; he disregarded his faith in Jehovah; he resorted to human means to relieve
his anxiety. In so doing, he created a situation in which a heathen king, upon ascertaining
that Rebekah was Isaac's wife and not his sister, said:
What is this thou has done unto us? Thou wouldst
have brought guiltiness upon us.
Gen. 26:10
You see, God's protection was there all the time. Even in the society of this heathen land,
the sacredness of the marriage relationship was established. Abimelech was, in a sense,
God's means of protection, for he charged all the people saying:
He that touches this man or his wife shall
surely be put to death.
Gen. 26:11
The only danger existing for Isaac was in his mind. This doubting human nature caused Isaac
to scorn the protection of the LORD. This same nature exists in Isaac's descendants today.
God maintains:
24 GRACE JOURNAL
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the
Lord (Messiah Jesus) shall be saved.
Rom. 10:11
Protection is involved in this word "saved. " And yet, today, most Jewish people will not
even consider the possibility of the Messiahship of Jesus and the protection one finds in Him,
not only from God's wrath but also from the world. No Isaac that ever lived can claim to be
a son of God because of the will of the flesh. How truly Isaiah speaks when he says:
I have spread out my hands all the day unto
a rebellious people that walk in a way that
is not good, after their own thoughts.
Isa. 65:2
It is man's own thoughts which cause him his greatest difficulties. Man never seems to
learn that he does not think along the same lines as God, nor does he accomplish things in the
same manner in which God wants them accomplished. (Isa. 55:8). Man, humanly speaking,
intensely desires independence. He even strives to be independent of God. He is not willing
to wait for God to accomplish His purpose in his life. He must effect it himself. He must be
independent!"
Jacob, the son of Isaac, was another such man. Without a doubt he knew that Jehovah had
said of him:
The elder (Esau) shall serve the younger (Jacob).
Gen. 25:23
He knew it was the purpose of Jehovah that he should have the birthright and blessing of the
first-born. He knew this and yet he schemed to avail himself of the family birthright, and
later connived with Rebekah, his mother, to gain for himself the patriarchial blessing of
Isaac. Nor could Jacob excuse himself with the thought that Esau despised his birthright. The
problem still remained in the stolen blessing which Esau did not despise. Jacob gained that
which was to be his, but the manner of his gaining it was absolutely wrong. This was the
reason for Esau's hatred and his threat to kill Jacob. This was the reason why Jacob had to
flee to Haran and tarry with Laban until Esau's anger cooled.
Jacob's character was still the same while he was in Haran. There was disagreement be-
tween Jacob and his father-in-law, Laban, who was of similar character. It resulted in Jacob's
leaving Haran and returning to the homeland of his father. But there was still the old problem
of Esau and he had to deal with it. He began to deal with it in the same old human way. He
still failed to take into consideration God's purpose for his life. True, at the start of his trip,
he prayed to God. He asked God for dehverance from the hand of Esau and he reminded God
of His promise:
And Thou saidst: I will surely do thee good,
and make thy seed as the sand of the sea,
which cannot be numbered for multitude.
Gen. 32:13
THE JEW 25
But he immediately split his people into two camps, and proceeded to send bribe after bribe
to Esau.
I will appease him with the present that goeth
before me, . . . peradventure he will accept me.
Gen. 32:22
But he does this in the face of the express command of God:
Return unto thy country, and to thy kindred,
and I will deal well with thee.
Gen. 32:9
"I will deal well with thee" should have implied to the mind of Jacob that God would fulfill
his purpose in Jacob's life. Jacob, for all his religiousness, failed to understand God and
went about to accomplish the reconciliation with Esau in his own strength. He was conscious
of his own character. He was a supplanter. He knew to what he would respond. Therefore,
he knew that Esau would respond to the same things in the same way. Thus Jacob exercised
the will of man; he resolved to accomplish this reconciliation through human effort. And so
the bribes were sent forth and Jacob tarried that night at the ford of Jabbok. He had sent all
of his company and possessions across the stream. God's Word says:
And Jacob was left alone.
Gen. 32:25
It is at such a time that God is best able to deal with a man. God chose this time to deal
with Jacob. The outcome was that Jacob realized he needed, above everything else, that which
only God could supply. Jacob needed a change of character.
"What is thy name?" asked God.
"Supplanter, " confessed Jacob.
With that conscious admission from Jacob, God said:
Thy name shall be called no more Jacob but
Israel, for as a prince thou has power with
God and with men.
Gen. 32:28
Now Jacob was a new man. He was Israel, a prince with God. He acted as such. He as-
sumed his place of responsibility; he headed the procession as it went toward the land of his
nativity and Esau.
And he himself passed over before them, and
bowed himself to the ground seven times until
26 GRACE JOURNAL
he came near his brother. And Esau ran to
meet him, and embraced him, fell on his
neck, and kissed him; and they wept.
Gen. 33:3-4
Jacob did not, Jacob could not, have effected this reconciliation through human wisdom.
Upon his submission to God, God was able to accomplish His purpose, first in the life of
Jacob and then in this reconciliation.
This is where our Jewish friends fall short today. For the most part they deny the power
of God. The Old Testament, states Kaplan, "is a source of perplexity to vast numbers of in-
telligent Jews who cannot reconcile the belief that the miraculous events recorded in the Bible
actually happened with what reason and present knowledge of cultural evolution testify con-
cerning all such tradition. "*
Our Jewish friends fall short in the matter of the protection of God. Time after time, as
I have ministered to Jewish people, they have made this statement: "Six million Jews were
killed in our lifetime. If there is a God, why did He not protect our people?"
Again they fall short in the matter of the purpose of God. Security in the world, in their
thinking, is not based so much upon the purpose of God but upon man's purpose. It is not be-
ing born from above that changes a man. It is an evolutionary process. To quote Kaplan
again:
Not only has man achieved greater control over formerly hostile
forces in nature, but little by little he is learning the need of
world-wide human cooperation to achieve a satisfactory and se-
cure life.
Who is a Jew? This is not a superfluous question. A Jew is one who has descended from
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. A Jew has also received something else from these old patri-
archs. He has received a nature which is ready to doubt God's power, God's protection, and
God's purpose for his life. Only through a salvation experience can a Jew really become a
prince of God. He must realize and accept the truth which the Jew Johannon preached.
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which
were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God.
John 1:12,13
And it is up to us who believe as John believed to witness to them,
That through your mercy they may
also obtain mercy.
Rom. 11:31
THE JEW 27
DOCUMENTATION
1. M. M. Kaplan, Tudaism Without Supernaturalism, page 9.
2. Ibid., p. 114.
"TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS''
A Critical Monograph on Acts 15:14-17
Abridged by the Author
CHARLES ZIMMERMAN
Winona Lake, Indiana
"Simeon hath declared how God at first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a
people for his name, And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen
down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of
men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
saith the Lord, who doeth all these things." (Acts 15: 14-17)
The significance of this passage lies in the use of Old Testament prophecies concerning the
Messianic kingdom by the Apostles of the early Church. Its dispensational implications have
been under debate for some time and from many quarters . This can be made clear by citing
two contrasting statements. Scofield writes, "Dispensationally, this is the most important
passage in the New Testament." * On the other hand, Bruce argues that the passage "has been
given an exaggerated 'dispensational' significance far beyond the implications of the text. "
Without doubt there is an interpretation which would be most harmonious with the total context
of Holy Scripture and would be acceptable to a serious student of the Word.
At the outset it should be recalled that Christianity was an outgrowth or development of
the true, genuine Hebrew religion. Christ himself was a Hebrew after the flesh. His min-
istry was exercised among Hebrews. Following Pentecost the Church growth had been almost
exclusively Hebrew. There may have been exceptions as scattered disciples preached Christ
here and there and Gentiles heard and believed. However, the general movement was Heb-
rew. Therefore, the Church experienced a violent perturbation upon the admission of Corneli-
us, a Gentile, as recorded in Acts 10. This was only the beginning of a threatening, long-
continued controversy. The problem was doomed to come to a head in the not -too -distant
future.
The crisis occurred upon the return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch from their first mis-
sionary journey. They found that certain men had come down from Judea and were insisting
that circumcision and submission to the Mosaic law were necessary for salvation.
The danger of this course was clear. The fundamental principle of the Gospel, salvation
by grace through faith, was at stake. The practical question of fellowship between Jewish and
Gentile Christians also lay in the balance.
Paul and Barnabas were appointed to go up to Jerusalem and discuss the problem with the
apostles and elders. The church assembled and the discussion followed. There were three
notable addresses upon that occasion.
28
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 29
Peter was the first to speak. Without arguing doctrine, he just stated the facts and the
deduction, He reminded the company that ten years before he had been led by God to the house
of Cornelius. The members of that household, though being Gentiles, heard the Gospel and
believed. The deduction was then made clear. If God accepted these Gentiles and cleansed
their hearts by the Holy Spirit, why should further conditions now be imposed on them which
God Himself plainly did not require.
During the silence which followed, Barnabas and Paul presented more supporting evidence
for Peter's argument. Their recent missionary journey through Cyprus and Asia Minor re-
vealed the mind of God in the bestowal of blessings upon the Gentiles.
At this point, all eyes were turned upon James, the brother of our Lord. As a leader a-
mong the elders of the Jerusalem church, he enjoyed the respect and confidence of all. He
referred to Peter's speech. Summarizing it, he said, "Simeon hath declared how God at the
first did visit the Gentiles to take out of them a people for his name. " This fact is said to be
in perfect harmony with the words of the prophets .
Now it is generally accepted that the prophecy to which Peter was referring is found in
Amos 9:11,12. According to the best authorities the prophecy was given approximately eight
centuries before its use in Acts 15. Among the prophecies of Amos, it comes at the con-
clusion of an elaborate pronouncement of woes and judgments upon the Northern Kingdom of
Israel and, generally, upon the whole "house of Jacob. " As the tone of the prophecy changes,
the prophet reveals that the fallen fortunes of the royal house of David will be restored and it
will rule over all the territory which had been included in David's empire. Here is a clear
reference to the Messianic reign.
This exposes the real crux of the problem. How could James quote an Old Testament
prophecy concerning the future Messianic Kingdom as support for certain happenings in the
church? In what sense do these "words of the prophet" agree with the "taking out" of the
Gentiles?
FULFILMENT IN THE CHURCH?
Those who hold this view believe that the words of the prophet found their complete Messi-
anic fulfilment in the reception of the Gentiles into the Church and Christianity. This was done
for the first time at the house of Cornelius in Caesarea by the virtue of what had happened on
the day of Pentecost. God took a people from the Gentile world. This is understood to be the
mystery, "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his
promise in Christ by the Gospel" (Eph. 3:6). '
This view finds its basis in an eschatological framework which assumes that the Old Test-
ament prophecies about the coming kingdom are fulfilled in the Church. This framework may
consist of either the total spiritualizing method of the amillennialists or the semi -spiritualiz-
ing method of the post-millennialists. Therefore, all support for this view will be conditioned
by this method of interpretation.
30 GRACE JOURNAL
At the very outset in James' use of the prophecy, a variation from the Hebrew text occurs.
It is felt that "after these things" in the Greek New Testament and "in that day" in the Hebrew
text are used synonymously and interpretatively. Lenski argues,
Amos writes, "in that day" i.e., when Israel's punishment will have been inflicted,
in the day when the Messianic Kingdom will be founded, in the day of the Christian
Church. When James spoke, that day had come and hence he quotes interpretively
when he substitutes the phrase, "after these things, " namely the inflictions of which
Amos had spoken. 5
The verb, "I will return, " was inserted by James and does not appear in the Hebrew text.
Barnes explains what he feels is meant by it when he says,
When the people of God are subjected to calamities and trials, it is often represented
as if God had departed from them. His returning is an image of their restoration to
his favor and to prosperity.
It is felt that the building again of David's tabernacle does not refer to the house of David
or David's descendants, even as a royal line . "But in Jesus, risen and glorified, the throne
and the Kingdom or rule of David were raised up and established forever."' The tabernacle
stood for the Church. The Church of Israel had fallen into a desperate state, because its
parts were ruined. James was saying that God would restore it.
It is further supposed that James was most concerned with the words "all the Gentiles."
The great Messianic restoration was intended most particularly for the Gentiles. 8 Their
coming into it made David's tabernacle (the Church) greater than ever.
The pronounced spiritualizing method used by the adherents of this view is noted for its
absence of "controls" in interpretation. That is, there are no consistent Literal and gram-
matical bounds within which they must operate. Its attraction lies in its flexibility. How-
ever, if words do not mean what they say within the bounds of common sense interpretation,
then the reader has nothing to guide him in his understanding. He is in imminent peril of
going astray theologically at any point. Typical dangers will be pointed out in refuting this
First, the proponents assume that which must be proved when asserting that "in that day"
of the Hebrew text is synonymous with the day of the Christian church. This conclusion is
based only upon the assumption that the Church is the recipient of all Messianic Kingdom
blessings.
Second, the words of the Lord, "I will return," are made to be only an image which refers
to restoration of favor. However, the language plainly implies a personal appearance! The
prophet's emphasis on restoration is not neglected by James. This may be noted in the verbs
that he used, "I will build again" and "I will set it up. " It didn't just happen that James adds
this idea to the prophecy given by Amos. Could it be possible that this phrase "I will return"
was inserted as an accommodation to the particular situation at hand as the result of a New
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 31
Testament enlightened understanding to indicate that the restoration would come to pass upon
the Lord's literal return to reign?
Third, confusion arises in identifying the "tabernacle of David" with the Church. To
follow through with such a hazardous method of interpretation would make the words of our
Lord meaningless when He said, "I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). There is no in-
dication that this had been in process during the past centuries through Israel. The church
was a new concept. Walvoord comments on this matter relative to the passage at hand. He
says,
By no possible stretch of the plain meaning of the passage can the tabernacle of David
be made to be an equivalent of the New Testament Church. The prophecy concerns
the rebuilding of that which was fallen down. The "ruins" are to be rebuilt "as in the
day of old. " The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national, and
have nothing to do with a spiritual church to which none of these blessings has been
promised. 9
Fourth, only through manipulation of the Scripture can it be said that the great Messianic
restoration was intended most particularly for the Gentiles. The very opposite is true. Is-
rael is to be the main recipient of Messianic restoration. "He shall set up an ensign for the
nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth" (Isa. 11:12). "He that scattered Israel will regather him,
and keep him, as a shepherd doth his flock" Jer. 31:10). The regathering as well as the
scattering is applied to Israel.
It should be said that by far the majority of expositors consulted by the writer adhere to
this view. However, in all fairness to many early expositors (before the twentieth century)
whose writings seem to classify them with this view, the writer wishes to absolve them from
any theological stigma. They were writing before many of the fine bines of eschatological
distinctions had been drawn. Therefore, many of their statements are broad and general be-
cause no issue had demanded a neat definition. What they did not say should never be made
to reflect upon their basic theological position.
FULFILMENT IN PRINCIPLE?
The exponents of this view suggest that the words of the prophet were fulfilled in principle
at the time of the conversion of Gentiles. Perfect fulfilment will occur in the future Messianic
Kingdom.
The writer is not unaware of the limitations of language in naming this view. To say that
an application of a principle in a given prophecy is a fulfilment of that prophecy is to speak
somewhat meaninglessly. However, warrant for such usage is given by Terry in stating,
When a given passage is of such a character as to be susceptible of application to
other circumstances or subjects than those to which it first applied, such secondary
appli cation should not be denied the name of a fulfilment. i0
32 GRACE JOURNAL
It is suggested that James refers to the facts related by Peter. He shows how those facts
were in perfect harmony or agreement (not literal fulfilment) with the words of the prophet.
The blessings of Gentiles as Gentiles had been announced by God long before. Amos is quo-
ted as proof that there would be Gentiles upon whom God's name would be called. Therefore,
there should be nothing inconsistent with Gentile conversion.
James is not understood to say that the perfect fulfilment of this was now taking place, or
that the tabernacle of David was now being raised up. One of the proponents of this view says,
It is sufficient for him that such a thing as Gentiles being owned as God's was in full
accord with God's ways announced. The prophecy clearly looks on to millennial times,
and not to Christian; but that which God can do at one time cannot be in itself incon-
sistent for Him to do at another.
This view clearly recognizes a literal, future Messianic reign of Christ on earth. It also
ably handles the word "agrees." This is an extremely unusual word for an introductory form-
ula of a prophetic quotation. In this case it is merely suggesting an agreement of a prin -
ciple; namely, the inclusion of Gentiles as God's people.
However, one question must be answered if this view is to be accepted. Why did James
change the words of the prophet, "in that day, " to "after these things?" If there was no im-
mediate contextual time element involved and if the fulfilment of the prophecy was yet future,
why change the words given by the prophet. It was not necessary for the prophet to say,
"after these things" to indicate that the blessings were to follow the judgments. This is clear
even upon a cursory reading of the passage. The time element was merely stated as "in that
day." Since "that day" was still future for James, it would seem unlikely that he would change
the phrase unless he had some further content of revelation to unfold.
It may also be asked how the argument of this view bears upon the basic problem at the
Jerusalem council. The problem did not revolve around the matter of Gentile inclusion as a
principle. This was foretold over and over in the Old Testament (Isaiah 2:2; 11:10; 60:5;
66:23). It was a matter of common knowledge. The heart of the question involved the im-
position of certain Jewish requirements upon Gentiles as necessary for salvation in the exist-
ing Christian economy. For lack of development and explanation, the strength of this view is
weakened.
MULTIPLE FULFILMENT?
The proponents of this view hold that the words of the prophets began to be fulfilled at the
time when God called out for Himself a people from among the Gentiles and will be completed
in fulfilment in the future Messianic Kingdom. This view is based upon a hermeneutical
principle suggested by Ramm that "there is in prophecy primary and ultimate reference, i.e.,
the possibility of successive fulfilment."^ Terry as well makes room for such a possibility.
A prophecy may not be the prediction of a specific event, "but a general oracle of God, and
of such a nature as to be capable of repeated fulfilments."1^ Kent understands certain pro-
phetic fulfilments recorded by Matthew in his gospel to be of this nature. **
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 33
It is the contention of this view, "that God had at this time begun to choose for himself a
new people who were to bear His name, a people from among the Gentiles. "^ However, this
was only the beginning. In the same sense, the subsequent conversion of every Gentile who
believes, provides the occasion of further or multiple fulfilments. Completion of the fulfil-
ment will occur in the Messianic Kingdom upon the restoration of the Jews and the inclusion of
all the Gentiles upon whom the name of God is called.
Bruce holds to some variation of this view. He agrees concerning the complete fulfilment
of the prophecy. He writes, "the primary sense of the Massoretic Text is that the fallen for-
tunes of the royal house of David will be restored and it will rule over all the territory which
had been included in David's empire."1" His deviation comes in explaining how James uses
the prophecy.
James' application of the prophecy finds the fulfilment of its first part (rebuilding of
the tabernacle of David) in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the Son of David,
. . . and the fulfilment of the second part in the presence of believing Gentiles as well
as believing Jews in the Church. *■'
If it is assumed that "agreement of the words of the prophets" means the same as "fulfil-
ment of the words of the prophets, " which may be a dangerous position, then the writer un-
derstands how Bruce is crowded into his explanation. The proponents say that multiple ful-
filments of the last part of the prophecy occur as believing Gentiles are called God's people.
But James did not quote the last part only. He also spoke concerning the tabernacle of David.
How was this being fulfilled? Bruce suggests it was being fulfilled in the resurrection and
exaltation of Christ. This conclusion involves a spiritualizing method akin to that used by
the first view considered.
Therefore, the writer has some problems with Bruce 's explanation. By what method of
hermeneutical manipulation can the "tabernacle of David" refer to David's empire and rule
(i.e. the Son of David) and, almost in the same breath, refer to the resurrection and exalta-
tion of Christ? Also, it seems strange that the apostles or Christ himself never referred to
this text when they appealed to the Old Testament for attestation of the resurrection of Jesus.
Rather, they appealed over and over again to the Psalms (comp. Psa. 16:10 with Acts 2:25-31,
Psa. 2:7 with Acts 13:33-37, Psa. 118:19-26 with Matt. 21:9,42). Could it be that the apostles
saw nothing of Christ's resurrection in the prophecy of Amos concerning the building again of
the tabernacle of David?
If the holders of this view suggest that the first part of the prophecy quoted from Amos
was not relevant to that time, but rather to a later time (which some seem to imply by their
silence), then it may be asked, Why did James include it in the quotation? Why did he not also
include some of the judgments which precede this passage in Amos? The judgments seem to
have reference to the same group of people as the blessing.
How does the prophecy concerning "all the Gentiles" agree with what Peter had just said?
Peter's words were not nearly so inclusive. He only said that God visited the Gentiles to take
"out of them" (not "all of them") a people for His name. The writer does not wish to appear
pedantic, but when it is said in Scripture that a certain thing is being fulfilled, who has the
34 GRACE JOURNAL
authority to suggest that part of it is and part of it isn't being fulfilled? This is the position
and dilemma into which one is forced if this view is accepted.
The writer is ready to concede that part of the prophecy is of such a nature as to lend it-
self to multiple fulfilments. The inclusion of Gentiles may be the common element in fulfil-
ments which occur at different times. However, James does not just quote that part which
pertains to Gentiles. There is also the subject of the "tabernacle of David. " Though a pro-
phecy may be capable of successive fulfilments, it does not seem likely that when a fulfilment
is stated as such it is intended to be accomplished in stages.
FULFILMENT IN SEQUENCE
Those who hold this view believe that the words of the prophets are not yet fulfilled but
will be fulfilled in the future Messianic Kingdom. They are used here to unfold the sequence
of the future program of God for men.
There is to be a taking out of Gentiles into the church according to the present economy.
"After these things" the Lord will return and build again the Davidic dynasty. The prophecy
will be fulfilled in a proper time sequence; namely, in the future Messianic kingdom. Chafer
suggests that, "the elders of the early Church distinguished here between the Church as a
present Divine objective and the final return to, and completion of, the Davidic covenant."1**
The harmony and agreement of the words of the prophet with Peter's statements consisted in
this, "that there was no conflict when all Scripture was properly referred. "^ When the se-
quence of events in God's program for the ages was recognized, there would be no problem
of establishing right policies for the Gentiles at that time or in the future.
The writer has accepted this view as being the most nearly correct interpretation. It
seems to present the fewest problems and follows the most consistent Literal, historical and
grammatical system of interpretation. The strength of this view will be better understood by
means of the following deveolpment.
First of all, it must be established that this passage has the Church in view as distinct
from the Messianic kingdom. Historically it may be observed that the emphasis upon the
Kingdom in the early chapters of Acts helps to explain the Jewish -Gentile problem in the
Apostolic church. Running parallel with the movement of the Kingdom in Acts there was also
the history of the Church which began at Pentecost. McClain points out that,
Because of the reoffer of the Kingdom to Israel, the period begins with the Kingdom
in the forefront. And while the prophets had made clear that the Gentile nations were
to share in its benefits, the nation of Israel always held the place of priority. There-
fore, it becomes understandable that the admission of Gentiles to the ekklesia raised
the problem of how they were to be received, if at all.20
The adjustment of the church was being accomplished by the growth of Jewish opposition
to the offer of the Messianic kingdom and by the process of new revelation concerning the u-
nique nature of the Church begun on the day of Pentecost. The words of James at the Jeru-
salem Council were a part of the latter process. Chafer says, "The early Qewish) Church is
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 35
discovering the new divine purpose and recognizing that postponement of the earthly King-
dom. "21
It seems that as late as the third chapter of Acts there was a genuine offer of the Kingdom
to a repentant Israel. However, upon their rejection of the Kingdom and intensified opposition
against those who believed and announced that Christ was the Messiah of Israel, there was a
shift in preaching emphasis from the Kingdom as an imminent possibility contingent on Is-
rael's repentance, to the Church as a unique body of believers in which all racial and national
distinctions disappear.
By the time of the passage under study, this shift was perhaps most pronounced in the
message of Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, who had just returned from a prosperous mis-
sionary journey. No doubt the emphasis in his oral ministry was similar to that of his written
epistles. It was made perfectly clear. Christ "hath made both (Jew and Gentile) one, and
hath broken down the middle wall of partition. . .for to make in Himself of twain one new man"
(Eph. 2:14, 15). This change in emphasis indicates a transition in the Divine economy relative
to Israel. The Church as a unique body was being unveiled having a glory all its own.
The reaction of the Jewish leaders to the message that Jesus Christ is the true Messiah of
Israel is certainly not in harmony with the Old Testament revelation concerning the Messianic
Kingdom and its establishment. Rather than opposition to the Messiah, there is every in-
dication that Israel will be characterized by repentance in that day. "They shall look upon me
whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him, as one mourneth for his only son"
(Zech. 12:10). This period recorded in the Acts of the Apostles must be, without question,
distinct from the Messianic Kingdom.
Peter's address at the Jerusalem Council also indicates a distinction. Peter, in relating
how the Gentiles believed and received the Holy Spirit, stated that God, "put no difference
between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). This is the church econ-
omy as indicated in Eph. 2. Paul made it even more plain when he said, "For there is no
difference between the Jew and Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call
upon Him" (Rom. 10:12).
However, the Scriptures make it quite plain that in this Messianic Kingdom there will be
some distinction between Jews and Gentiles. The prophet Isaiah sees Israel as the economic,
social and religious leader among nations in the Messianic Kingdom. Nations will be owned
of the Lord as "nations that are called by my name" (Amos 9:12), but Israel "shall be named
the Priest of the Lord: men shall call you the Ministers of our God: ye shall eat the riches
of the Gentiles, and in their glory shall ye boast yourselves" (Is. 61:6). It would seem that
the Gentiles will be the Literal servants of Israel in that day. "And strangers shall stand and
feed your flocks, and the sons of the alien shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers"
(Is. 61:5). At that time there will be a difference between Jew and Gentile; therefore, Peter
must have had reference to something other than the Messianic Kingdom.
The doctrines relative to the Church and the Messianic Kingdom are clearly established
in this passage. Amos introduces his prophecy with the time element, "in that day." This
phrase has undoubted reference to the "day of the Lord. " _n Amos 5: 18, 20, it is specifically
36 GRACE JOURNAL
called the "day of the Lord. " It is common to almost all the Old Testament prophets.
McClain describes this as "a period which is always associated with the Kingdom of
Old Testament prophecy. "23 j^ seems to be a period of intense judgment followed by im-
mense blessing for Israel. The latter will be initiated upon the return of the King. At this
time, God will raise up the "tabernacle of David." There is little question but that this refers
to the "Davidic throne. " However, it should be understood that the New Testament nowhere
equates the throne of the Father with the throne of David. Christ is seated "on the right hand
of the Majesty on high," (Heb. 1:3) but this is not at all the same as being seated on the throne
of David.
The establishment of David's throne will secure Israel's supremacy over the nations, will
be a time of material prosperity, and will guarantee their permanence in the land. Israel is
the center of all events.
This could never be identified with the New Testament Church. It concerns a rebuilding
of that which had fallen down. The ruins will be set up again "as in the days of old" (Amos
9:11). As Walvoord says, "The nature of the blessings are earthly, territorial, and national,
and have nothing to do with the spiritual Church to which none of these blessings have been
promised. "24.
It is worthy of note that this distinction needed to be taught to the disciples as late as
Acts 15 . Throughout the ministry of Christ they were encouraged to expect a literal fulfil -
ment of the Kingdom promises. They had been promised thrones upon which they would
judge the twelve tribes of Israel (Matt. 19:28). Sufferings in this life were to be rewarded by
eating at the King's table (Luke 22:30). In Acts 1:6 they were still looking for a literal King-
dom. While Christ did not reveal the exact "time" for its establishment, neither did He
spiritualize it and transfer all their hopes to the Church.
Though the Kingdom was postponed, the promises continued undimmed. Christ would yet
return and reign upon the earth. Therefore, a spiritualizing of the Old Testament prophecy,
either completely or partially, does violence to the text and to the particular doctrines which
are involved.
Therefore, this view most nearly agrees with the total Biblical revelation concerning the
Church and Messianic Kingdom. Amos and Peter were talking about two different things.
Secondly, the context of the passage provides a clue as to the relevancy of the prophecy
quoted by James to the immediate problem in the Church. There has been considerable con-
fusion on this point. Gerstner suggests the difficulty by saying,
Peter and James also testified that God was actually saving the Gentiles without cir-
cumcision and had predicted that in the last days He would restore the residue of men
(w. 15-17). It is difficult to see what bearing that verse had on the precise point of
the controversy, which was not whether Gentiles would be saved, but whether they
would be saved without the Jewish rites . 25
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 37
Those who hold to the "fulfilment in principle" view readily solve the difficulty by indicat?-
ing that the prophecy is quoted to convince them that the principle of Gentile conversion was
in keeping with the facts which Peter declared. But the men of old knew very well that the
Gentiles should be saved, and the prophets clearly predicted the fact. Therefore, this was
not the crux of the problem.
If it be suggested that the Church as a unique entity is under consideration with the prin-
ciple of Gentiles being included on the same basis as Jews, it should be stated that the pro-
phets did not know of the birth of the Church in which Gentiles were "fellowheirs and of the
same body" (Eph. 3:6). This conception was first given to Paul by revelation and now was
"made manifest. . .by the Scriptures of the (New Testament) prophets" (Rom. 16:26). Since
the Old Testament did not contemplate this new body, how could quotations from that source
be found to bear on it?
Others have more rightly pointed out that the real problem which demanded a church
council was whether Gentiles could be saved without performing certain Jewish rites. This
seems to be most plausible.
However, some have come to some strained conclusions. Maclaren feels that the argu-
ment of silence is the force of James' quotation of the prophecy. He writes,
Now the force of this quotation lies, as it seems, ...in the argumentum a silento,
since the prophet says nothing about ritual or the like but declares that moral and
spiritual qualifications --are all that are needed to make Gentiles God's people. Just
because there is nothing in the prophecy about observing Jewish ceremonies, and
something about longing and faith, James thinks that these are the essentials, and
that the others may be dropped by the Church, as God had dropped them in the case of
Cornelius, and as Amos had dropped them in his vision of the future Kingdom. 26
This idea seems to fit the context and would perhaps be acceptable if there was no better
solution. It should be said that the argument from silence is, of its very nature, weak.
Coupled with this weakness is a lack of purpose for James to alter the original prophecy and
say, "after these things." If he was saying that the silence on circumcision in Messianic
Kingdom prophecy was the ground for omitting circumcision in the Church, then why did he
not use the words of the prophecy, "in that day"?- Evidently he was trying to indicate sequence
of some nature or another.
Therefore, the writer believes that the "fulfilment in sequence view" most completely
fits the context. James was not quoting the prophecy as being directly relevant to the present.
He was outlining the course of events as they were developing and would continue to develop.
Hence, the force of the question lies in its enlightening the listeners as to God's plan. Peter
had declared one thing. God was taking out Gentiles and putting them on the same level as
the Jews. He put "no difference between" them (Acts 15:9). This was not out of harmony
with those things which would follow according to Amos .
When everything is put in its rightful place and order, there will be no problem with
circumcision and other ordinances. God will reveal the necessary requisites for each period
38 GRACE JOURNAL
in the proper place and time. Walvoord asserts, "The passage, instead of identifying God's
purpose for the Church and for the nation of Israel, established a specific time order. "ll
Thirdly, a proper exegesis of the passage lends force to this view. James said that Peter
had "declared" that God had first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His
name in the house of Cornelius. The word translated "declare" means literally to "lead out."
It is the verbal root of the noun from which we get the English word "exegesis." Of the six
times it is used in the New Testament, five times it is translated "declared." In this sense
it may mean only a recounting of certain facts (Acts 10:8, 15:12), or it may suggest an un-
folding of hidden truths. Moulton and Milligan agree concerning this latter usage in that
numerous examples of the technical use of this verb "denotes the communication of divine and
other secrets." According to Thayer it is "used in Greek writings of the interpretation of
things sacred and divine, oracles, dreams, etc."™
John uses it in this way when he says that, "no man hath seen God at any time; the only
begotten Son. . .He hath declared Him" (John 1:18). He means that the Son revealed, exegeted,
or interpreted the Father to men as none other could do or had done. It is in this same sense
that James uses the word. He does not mean that Peter was merely recounting his experience
at the house of Cornelius, but he was unfolding truths which had been hidden to former gener-
ations . Peter had announced how God had saved the Gentiles and put no difference between
them and the Jews. Though this had not been made known to men in other ages (Eph. 3:5),
now it was declared. Since it had formerly been hidden, how could the Old Testament pro-
phecy be appealed to for support? The declaration of Peter was one thing. What the prophet
had to say was another. Therefore, the harmony between the two had to do with something
other than content. Historical sequence is being emphasized.
The word translated "agree" means literally "to be in harmony or accord with. " It is
never used in the New Testament as an introductory formula for an Old Testament quotation
or prophetic fulfilment. Therefore, because of the absence of such usage, the passage must
make it very plain that a fulfilment is intended. In this case, such clear evidence is wanting.
The sequence of events is expressed in the phrase, "after these things. " These were not
the prophet's words. Amos wrote, "In that day..." Obviously James was not attempting a
literal quotation of the prophet. He rather sought to adapt the prophecy to the situation at
hand. Actually, he was indicating that which was to precede the events about which the pro-
phet spoke. That which was to precede is marked out in v. 14 by the word "first." This
word in the original language is used over and over in the New Testament to indicate that
which is first in a series of events. In listing some of the gifts, Paul wrote, "And God hath
set some in the church, first (in a series) apostles, secondarily prophets, ..." (I Cor. 12:28).
James says that the wisdom which is from above "is first (in a series of Listed characteris-
tics) pure, then peaceable, gentle, ..." (James 3:17). In the passage under study James says
that Peter has revealed how God first (in a series of events) visited the Gentiles with salvation
by grace through faith plus nothing, and next or "after this" the Lord will return and build
again the tabernacle of David.
It should be further pointed out in opposition to the first view listed that the prophecy has
not yet been fulfilled as indicated by the phrase, "I will return." This was not a part of the
TO THIS AGREE THE WORDS OF THE PROPHETS 39
prophecy but was added by James in the future tense to indicate that what the prophet had said
was still future. The spiritualizing method which suggests that "His returning is an image of
their (God's people) restoration to His favor and to prosperity"^ must be rejected. No
Scriptural support can be given for this view. Walvoord is right when he says,
Israel's blessing will not come until "I return," apparently a reference to the second
coming of Christ. That it could not refer either to the incarnation or to the coming of
the Spirit at Pentecost is evident in that neither is a "return . *
Therefore, one is shut up to a definite time order. First, the inclusion of the Gentiles in
God's plan for the Church, and after this the return of Christ to set up His Kingdom.
SUMMARY AND PARAPHRASE
In summary, James makes reference to Peter's declaration concerning God's first taking
out of the Gentiles a people for His name. This primarily involved His plan of including both
Jew and Gentile in the New Testament Church. To this, James says, the words of the pro-
phets concerning the Messianic Kingdom agree. The time order of the events are in perfect
harmony. After this period of Gentile conversion, the Lord will return and will rebuild the
tabernacle of David and establish His reign in the promised Messianic Kingdom. During this
time Israel shall enjoy their promised blessings and the residue of men (identified as "all the
Gentiles") shall seek after the Lord.
A legitimate paraphrase may read as follows: "Simeon has declared (led out in the full
meaning of) how God first visited the Gentiles to take out from among them a people for (to
bear) His name. And to this visitation of the Gentiles the words of the prophets agree with
respect to the order of events in God's plan, as it is written, After these things pertaining to
Gentile conversion under grace, I will return (in glory) and I will build again the tabernacle
and throne of David which is fallen and I will build again the ruins of it and I will set it up a-
gain in the land of its former domain. That the remainder of men might seek the Lord; name-
ly, all' the Gentiles upon whom my name has been called, saith the Lord, who is doing these
things" (Acts 15:14-17).
DOCUMENTATION
1. C.I. Scofield, Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949), p.
1169.
2. F. F. Bruce, The New Bible Commentary, ed. F. Davidson (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerd-
mans Publishing Co., 1953), p. 920.
3. John C. Whitcomb, chart on Old Testament Kings and Prophets (Winona Lake, Ind. : Grace
Theological Seminary, 1959).
4. John Bird Sumner, A Practical Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles (London: J. Hatchard
and Son, 1837), p. 15.
5. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (Columbus, Ohio: The
Wartburg Press, 1944), p. 609.
6. Albert Barnes, Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 230.
7. Lenski, op_. cit. , p. 609.
40 GRACE JOURNAL
8. Ibid., p. 610.
9. John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom (Findlay, Ohio: Dunham Publishing Company,
1959), p. 205.
10. Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (New York: Eaton and Mains, 1890), II, p. 402.
11. F. W. Grant, The Numerical Bible (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Bible Truth Depot;
n.d.), p. 100.
12. Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W. A. Wilde Company, 1950),
p. 160.
13. Terry, op_. cit., p. 401.
14. Homer A. Kent, Jr., "Matthew's Use of the Old Testament" (Unpublished Graduate Sem-
inar Paper at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Ind. , 1962), p. 8.
15. Bernhard Weiss, A Commentary on the New Testament (New York: Funk and Wagnalls
Company, 1906), II, p. 530.
16. F. F. Bruce, Commentary on the Book of Acts (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Company, 1960), p. 310.
17. Ibid., p. 310.
18. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1948), V,
p. 329.
19. J. M. StLfler, An Introduction to the Study of the Acts of the Apostles (New York: Fleming
H. Revell Company, 1892), p. 141.
20. Alva J. McClain, The Greatness of the Kingdom (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing
House, 1959), V., p. 428.
21. Chafer, op_. cit., p. 268.
22. McClain, op_. cit., p. 428.
23. Ibid., p. 178.
24. Walvoord, op_. cit., p. 205.
25. John H. Gerstner, The Biblical Expositor, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (Philadelphia: A. J.
Holman Co., 1960), in. p. 210.
26. Alexander Maclaren, Exposition of Holy Scripture, Acts of the Apostles (New York:
Hodder and Stoughton, n.d.), p. 86.
27. Walvoord, op. cit., p. 206.
28. James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1952), p. 223~~.
29. Joseph Henry Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: Amer-
ican Book Co., 1889), p. 223.
30. Albert Barnes, Acts of the Apostles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1953), p. 230.
31. Walvoord, op_. cit., p. 206.
BOOK REVIEWS
ANOTHER LOOK AT SEVENTH-DAY AD-
VENTISM. By Norman F. Douty. Baker Book
House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1962. 224 pp.
$3.50.
Since September, 1956, when Dr. Donald
G. Barnhouse published an article in Eternity
magazine challenging the evangelical world to
accept the SDA movement as basically evangel-
ical ('Are Seventh-day Adventists Christians?"),
there has been increasing debate on this sub-
ject. With the encouragement of Barnhouse ,
SDA leaders published in 1957 a 700-page vol-
ume entitled, Seventh -day Adventists Answer
Questions on Doctrine, in which they sought to
present their movement as one in basic har-
mony with all orthodox Christian groups . An
associate of Barnhouse, Walter R. Martin,
likewise sought to present SDAs as evangeli-
cals in his book, The Truth About Seventh-day
Adventism (Zondervan, 1960).
In the present volume, Norman Douty, a
former president of Grand Rapids Baptist Theo-
logical Seminary and College, makes a thor-
ough study of twelve SDA doctrines in the bight
of their recent claims in Questions on Doctrine
and in the light of Scripture. With regard to
the former, he succeeds in showing that it does
not give a true picture of SDA teaching. With
regard to the latter, Douty concludes that the
movement is characterized by delusion and
heresy. "As long as Adventism remains Ad-
ventism it must be repudiated. When it aban-
dons its distinctive doctrines it will no longer
be Adventism" (p. 189). Concerning Mrs.
Ellen G. White, who founded the movement
about 120 years ago with her claims of divine
inspiration, Douty states: "We cannot avoid
the conclusion that Mrs. White was Satanically
ensnared and that those who follow her, how-
ever sincere and upright, are equally so" (p.
174).
on classifying SDA as an evangelical move-
ment is either ignorant of its teachings or is
confused in his understanding of the term "e-
vangelical. " Christians must beware of the
current trend of watering down this term to
include only an irreducible minimum of ortho-
dox doctrine, and must not fear to brand as
heretical those who deviate in significant areas
from the plain teachings of the Word of God.
Bible believers everywhere owe a debt of
gratitude to Norman Douty for the immense
amount of research he has brought to bear
upon his analysis of Seventh-day Adventism.
While his book is not written in a smooth-
flowing and popular style, it nevertheless
serves as an indispensable source book for
students and Christian workers who are con-
cerned about the true nature of this growing
cult.
JOHN C. WHITCOMB, JR.
Grace Theological Seminary
THE PASTORAL EPISTLES ^EW CLARENDON
BIBLE). By. C. K. Barrett. Oxford Univer-
sity Press, London, 1963. 151pp., $2.50.
This attractive little volume is specifi-
cally designed for the college student. The
New Clarendon Bible series of commentaries
will fill in the gaps in the old series (Claren-
don Bible) and also will eventually replace
many of the existing volumes of its predeces-
sor. This is the first commentary, to the
knowledge of this reviewer, which uses the
text of the New English Bible . There are eight
illustrations, some taken from ancient sculp-
tures, which assist the reader to visualize the
Greek and Roman world. A helpful map of the
eastern Mediterranean has been placed on the
inside cover.
After studying this book, the reviewer can-
not avoid the conclusion that anyone who insists
Less pleasing to this reviewer are some of
the author's conclusions. Paul's authorship is
41
42
GRACE JOURNAL
denied, although no one else is suggested (p.
18). Dr. Barrett relies heavily on Harrison's
well-known statistics to show the linguistic
peculiarities of the Pastoral Epistles (p. 5).
However, studies by Hendrikson (Exposition of
the Pastoral Epistles. 1957), Guthrie (The
Pastoral Epistles. 1957), and Metzger (Expos-
itory Times. 1958-59), have shown these sta-
tistics to be based on too limited a body of
Literature to be of any real significance.
To the author's objection that "the picture
of Timothy and Titus given in the Pastorals
scarcely corresponds with that which is given
by Acts and the genuine epistles" (p. 9), this
reviewer feels that the problem is more im-
agined than real. The author insists that the
fatherly and elementary advice given in 2 Tim-
othy is incompatible with the information in
Acts that Timothy was one of the earliest of
Paul's companions. An understanding of the
nature of Faul's relationship to his younger
associates would seem sufficient to account for
such paternal notices .
Although many of the author's insights are
stimulating and helpful, the liberal standpoint
which often injects itself into the interpretation
will greatly limit the usefulness of this volume
among the readers of Grace Journal.
HOMER A. KENT, JR.
Grace Theological Seminary
TRIUMPHANT IN TROUBLE. By Paul S. Rees.
Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood, New Jer-
sey, 1962. 144 pp., $3.00.
This little book of studies in I Peter by the
well-known preacher and vice president of
World Vision, Inc ., is an excellent popular
treatment of the Epistle. The book is attract-
ively outlined, abounding with pertinent illus-
trations, and gives evidence of having been
preached by this prominent pulpiteer.
The volume opens with a chapter on intro-
ductory matters, and though it is brief, it pro-
vides a fine summary for the student and the
serious lay reader. Included are discussions
of authorship, original readers, date, and dis-
tinctive features. The author deckles that
Peter wrote to a mixture of Jews and Gentiles,
with the latter in the majority. He cites 1 Pet.
2:10, "Once you were no people, but now you
are God's people," as arguing for Gentile
readership (p. 11). The fact that this passage
is a quotation of Hos. 1:9, 2:23, which obvious-
ly refers to Jews, would seem to prove the
opposite, but this is not discussed by the au-
thor.
Dr. Rees does not go into the intricacies of
exegesis, but he excells in summarizing the
tenor of the passage and in drawing pertinent
applications . His treatment of the section on
husbands and wives is well done (pp. 70-76).
Regarding Peter's passage on slavery, he
writes: "No New Testament writer, and not
least Peter, makes any attack on the institution
of human slavery. Nor does any writer incite
the Christian slaves to mount an offensive a-
gainst it. (Meanwhile, of course, the form-
idable mountain was being drilled and packed
with it, and one day the explosion would be
touched off.) It is neither as social philosopher
nor as social reformer that Peter is here
speaking. The issue to which he addresses
himself is this: Within the realities of the
existing social situation how ought Christian
slaves to deport themselves in relation to their
masters?" (p. 61)
On disputed passages, the author apparent-
ly takes the view that "Babylon" means Rome
(p. 23). He explains the "spirits in prison" as
the fallen angels of Genesis 6, to whom Christ
made a proclamation of victory during the in-
terval between his death and resurrection (p.
90). The persecutions envisioned in the E-
pistle are not seen as limited to official and
organized trials, but can refer to every kind of
opposition (p. 13).
BOOK REVIEWS
43
This is a good book,
by reading it.
One can be edified
HOMER A. KENT, JR.
Grace Theological Seminary
THE LAST JUDGMENT. By James P. Martin.
Eerdmans Pub. Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan,
214 pages, $4.00.
Here is a penetrating examination of the
Last Judgment in relation to the changing
moods of Protestant Theology. Commencing
with the Orthodoxy of the Reformation Dr.
Martin carries the investigation through Later
Orthodoxy, Puritanism, Pietism, Rationalism,
Idealism, Dispensationalism, and concludes
with the theology of Ritschl. With keen in-
sight, he displays how theological systems un-
dermine the Scriptures in such a way that Bib-
lical teaching on eschatology and the Last
Judgment is removed entirely from the area of
serious consideration or reduced to a meaning-
less discussion.
Dr. Martin approaches this study with a
definite theological system of his own. To
him, Orthodoxy possessed the clearest, and
the most highly developed system of theology,
bringing the Last Judgment and justification
into close harmony. In treating the eschat-
ology of the nineteenth century, dispensation-
alism is summarily dismissed with such state-
ments: "In this system the Last Judgment is
merely one feature among many to be looked
for, but has nothing to do with history as a
meaningful whole... This method leads to an
understanding of history as a disconnected sys-
tem of judgments and human failures ... It does
not relate judgment effectively to soteriology,
and as far as the present age is concerned, it
does not feel the need of a Christocentric in-
terpretation of judgment" (p. 191).
History, doctrine, exegesis, theology,
philosophy and morality are packed into this
discussion of the Last Judgment. One thing
might be hoped for: a presentation of a stream
of theology apart from formal treatise that
gives the Last Judgment its rightful place.
However, every sentence is saturated with
meaning, making this a classic in its field.
HERMAN A.
Grace Theological Seminary
HOYT
CULTS AND ISMS: TWENTY ALTERNATES
TO EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANITY. By Rus-
sell P. Spittler. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan, 1962. 143 pp. $2.95.
This work is exactly what its title suggests.
It presents in concise, readable fashion the
essential material relating to the major and a
number of minor cults and isms which are at
variance with the orthodox viewpoint. The au-
thor does not encumber his chapters (13 of
them) with unimportant details but immediately
comes to grips with what needs to be known a-
bout the particular heresy being discussed.
After an introductory chapter, Mr. Spittler
devotes chapters II through VIII to dealing with
the major cults of the day — Mormonism, Sev-
enth-Day Adventism, Spiritualism, Christian
Science, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unity and Moral
Re-Armament. In chapter IX he takes up three
cults which have come "out of the East" — The-
osophy, Baha'ism, Zen Buddhism. Chapter X
deals with such minor cults as Anglo -Israelism,
Astrology, Father Divineism, Rosicrucianism
and Swedenborgianism . Chapter XI is devoted
to Roman Catholicism, while chapter XII deals
with the general subject of Modernism and re-
lated movements such as Humanism, Unitarian-
ism and Universalism, Liberalism and Neo-
Orthodoxy.
In a very helpful closing chapter (XIII) the
author interprets the isms showing the lessons
that may be learned from them, the general
nature of their errors, the sinister character of
44
GRACE JOURNAL
their beliefs, and the importance for the Christ-
ian to know well his own position before he at-
tempts to deal with those caught in the toils of
the various isms.
A splendid chart giving a digest of each cult
dealt with in the book appears just inside the
front and back covers.
This reviewer has been very favorably im-
pressed with this work and feels that it will
make a good textbook for classes dealing with
the false cults of the day.
HOMER A. KENT, SR.
Grace Theological Seminary
THE HOME FRONT OF JEWISH MISSIONS.
By Albert Juisjen. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Michigan. 1962. 222 pp. $3.95.
The Home Front of Jewish Missions is a
comprehensive study of the responsibility which
rests upon the church in its local congregation-
al organizations in the attempt to reach the Jew
with the message of Salvation. Mr. Huisjen is
a man well suited to the task of producing this
book having labored in Jewish missions since
February 1, 1924.
The material in the book is presented in
five sections. The first is scriptural instruc-
tion and admonition that Gentile Christians
should show compassion to the Jews, pray for
their salvation, and labor in the gospel in their
behalf.
The second section delineates how and why
the Jew has made the Word of God of non-effect
through his vain tradition. Even though this
has resulted in a darkened spiritual perception
we are assured scripturally the Jew can be
moved, he can be reached for the Lord, by
those who are really interested.
The third section is a brief history of the
unscriptural and unwise approaches made to
the Jew by the Church down through the ages.
The reason for the resultant failure to reach
the Jew is also clearly presented.
The fourth and fifth sections of the book
deal with the problem of reaching the Jew in
our day. Here are discussed the "Mission
Societies" and their efforts. But more import-
ant the Church is challenged to participate in
the evangelization of Jews not only through aid-
ing the Mission attempts, but also by an all out
effort of its own to reach the Jews in the sur-
rounding community. The book closes with a
course of action which can be put to effective
use by any interested congregation.
The Home Front of Tewish Missions is a
book which has long been needed. I have but
two comments to make in closing The first. . .
"I wish I had said that. " The second. . . A pas-
tor's library is not complete without this vol-
ume.
BRUCE L. BUTTON
Los Angeles, California
TWENTIETHCENTURY RELIGIOUS THOUGHT
By John Macquarrie. Harper & Row, New York,
1963. 415 p., $5.00.
According to Professor Macquarrie," Four
years ago some members of the editorial staff
of Messrs . Harper and Brothers suggested to
me over lunch I should write the story of reli-
gious thought in the present century, with spe-
cial reference to the relations of philosophy
and theology. " The fruit of the luncheon date
is the book Twentieth-Century Religious Thought
The author taught systematic theology at
Glasgow University. His current faculty posi-
tion is in the same area at Union Theological
Seminary (New York\ with emphasis on liberal
religious philosophy.
BOOK REVIEWS
45
Surveying religious philosophies of 1900-
1960, Macquarrie's book is a quick reference
to the divergent schools of religious thought of
the period and the chief exponents of the views.
The author covers 19 major philosophies (div-
ided into 64 subthemes). The writings of 164
historians, philosophers, scientists and theo-
logians are examined. Chapter XXIII consists
of the author's concluding comments. These
deserve attention as they reflect the twentieth
century religious thought of Union Theological
Seminary.
The technical handling of the subject does
not recommend Twentieth - Century Religious
Thought to many laymen. Seminary students
and teachers will find the book helpful for writ-
ing theses. Pastors with scholastic background
may find Macquarrie's surveys helpful as a
summary of the liberal religious views of 1900-
1960. If the material in the book is insufficient;
a 23 -page bibliography of selected writings by
the philosophers treated by the author will lead
the reader to an abundance of collateral read-
ing.
Macquarrie has selected many lesser writ-
ers as well as the outstanding ones (like Josiah
Royce, John Richardson ELLingworth, William
Ernest Hocking, Adolf von Harnack, James
Henry Leuba, Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung,
Wilhelm Dilthey, Arnold Joseph Toynbee, Al-
bert Schweitzer, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Solomon
Washington Glasden, Walter Rauschenbusch,
Henri Louis Bergson, Alfred Firmin Loisy,
Harry Emerson Fosdick, John Dewey, Martin
Buber, George Santayana, Albert Einstein,
Ernest William Barnes, Fulton John Sheen, Karl
Barth, Heinrich Emil Brunner, Oscar Cullman,
Reinhold Niebuhr, Jean Paul Sartre and Paul
Johannes Tillich). One wonders if the lavish
number of writers covered by Macquarrie is
more a status symbol of his scholarship than an
absolute need to understanding the basic essen-
tials of twentieth century liberal religious
thought.
In the final chapter of his book, Macquarrie
says: "At the end of our survey, the reader
may well feel somewhat bewildered. We have
met so many views of religion, some of them
sharply conflicting others shading off into each
other, and some of them so diverse that they
may seem to be talking about quite different
things or at any rate different aspects of the
same thing. . .
"On the other hand, we can hardly fail to
have been impressed by the extraordinary in-
genuity and power of thought shown by the phil-
osophers, theologians, and others included in
the survey. The conflict of views is not a sheer
chaos. . . " The genuine Christian reader cannot
read Twentieth - Century Religious Thought
without realizing that the principles that the
book surveys are philosophies "after the tradi-
tion of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ. " Only in Christ "are hid
all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. "
Macquarrie's concluding comments include
these: "Absolute and final truth on the ques-
tions of religion is just unattainable." And
"One can be loyally and wholeheartedly com-
mitted to a religious attitude without believing
that it embodies final and exclusive truth, and
without abandoning the expectation of learning
more." What Macquarrie sets forth as com-
mitment is an ambiguous something incompat-
ible with the words of Jesus:
"I am the way, the truth, and the life: no
man cometh unto the Father, but by me."
(John 14:6)
"I am the door: by me if any man enter in,
he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and
find pasture. " 0ohn 10:9)
BENJAMIN A. HAMILTON
Grace Theological Seminary
46
GRACE JOURNAL
THE MAKING OF A MAN OF GOD. By Alan
Redpath. Fleming H. Revell Co., Westwood,
N. J., 1962, 256 pp., $3.50.
Dr. Alan Redpath, formerly pastor of
Moody Memorial Church, has produced another
refreshing and interesting character study.
This work on the life of David is fashioned not
as an exegetical or critical study, but is given
with a devotional and informative purpose.
While no author could cover the life of David in
one volume, Dr. Redpath utilizes his twenty-
seven chapters well. He generally avoids re-
petitious thoughts (an easy pitfall in the Davidic
studies), often presents the plan of salvation,
and regularly challenges the believer to make
a lasting response for Christ.
As the life of David is unfolded, he makes
a fine integration of appropriate Psalms. The
author prop oses the question, What timber
would God use to make a "man of God"? God
seeks a heart which responds to His love and
makes a recognition of the power and presence
of the Holy Spirit in his life. The conversion
of a soul is a miracle of the moment, but the
manufacture of a saint is the task of a lifetime.
Chapters Two and Four concerning David's
conflict with Goliath and Jonathan's love for
David are full of blessings for the reader.
Making application for the day, the author
strikes at the modern church as correct in
organization and ready in techniques, but
powerless in battle. He also points out that
there is a real price to pay for Christian lead-
ership.
Not all readers will agree with the follow-
ing conclusions of Dr. Redpath: (1) David's
trouble with Bathsheba started with his rejec-
tion by Mi chal (p. 163). (2) Ahithophel was the
grandfather of Bathsheba and sought by trai-
torous action to gain vengeance on David (pp.
207, 223). (3) The Moabites murdered David's
parents during their exile in Moab (pp. 178,
179). (4) Christ cannot come today because He
must await the evangelization of the whole
world (pp. 224-229). Nevertheless, ministers,
Sunday School teachers, and the general read-
ers will find here a fresh approach and new
applications to the life of David.
JAMES H. GABHART
Waterloo, Iowa
BOOKS RECEIVED
SALVATION. By Ernest F. Kevan. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 130 pp.,
$2.50.
THE HOLY SPIRIT. By Wick Broomall. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1963. 211pp.,
$2.95.
WRESTLERS WITH GOD: Prayers of the Old Testament. By Clarence Edward Macartney.
Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1963. 207 pp., $2.95.
PROCLAIMING THE NEW TESTAMENT: THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. By John R.
Richardson and Knox Chamblin. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1963. 166 pp., $2.95.
PROCLAIMING THE NEW TESTAMENT: THE BOOK OF REVELATION. By Merrill C.
Tenney. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1963. 116 pp., $2.75.
THE CHRISTIAN AND THE COUCH. By Donald F. Tweedie, Jr. Baker Book House, Grand
Rapids, Mich., 1963. 240 pp., $3.95.
RAS SHAMRA AND THE BIBLE. By Charles F. Pfeiffer. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1962. 73 pp., $1.50, paper.
THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. By Charles F. Pfeiffer. Baker Book House, Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1962. 119 pp., $2.50.
STEPS TO THE SERMON. By H. C. Brown, Jr., H. Gordon Clinard and Jesse J. Northcutt.
Broadman Press, Nashville, Tenn., 1963. 202 pp., $4.50.
TWENTIETH CENTURY CHRISTIANITY. By Stephen Neills, ed. Doubleday and Co., Garden
City, N. Y., 1963. 432 pp., $1.45, paper.
THE AUTHORITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES. By H. N. Ridderbos. Presby-
terian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1963. 93 pp., $2.50, paper.
THE SUPREME COURT AND PRAYER IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL. By J. Marcellus Kik.
Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1963. 40 pp., $.75, paper.
KARL BARTH'S THEOLOGICAL METHOD By Gordon H Clark. Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., Philadelphia, 1963. 229 pp., $5.00.
THE SECULAR MEANING OF THE GOSPEL. By Paul M. Van Buren. The Macmillan Co.,
New York, 1963. 205 pp., $4.95.
COMMUNISM AND THE THEOLOGIANS. By Charles C. West. The Macmillan Co., New
York, 1963. 399 pp., $1.95, paper.
MIRACLES: A Preliminary Study. By C. S. Lewis. The Macmillan Co., New York, 1963.
192 pp., $.95, paper.
YOUR GROWING CHILD AND RELIGION. By R. S. Lee. The Macmillan Co., New York,
1963. 224 pp., $1.45, paper.
SEXUAL ETHICS. By Sherwin Bailey. The Macmillan Co., New York, 1963. 169 pp., $1.45,
paper.
NAUGHT FOR YOUR COMFORT. By Trevor Huddleston. The Macmillan Co., New York,
1963. 168 pp., $1.45, paper.
FOUR PROPHETS: A Modern Translation from the Hebrew. By J. B. Phillips. The Mac-
millan Company, New York, 1963. 161pp., $3.95.
A SHORT HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BIBLE. By Robert M. Grant.
The Macmillan Company, New York, 1963. 224 pp., $1.45, paper.
SOCIOLOGY LOOKS AT RELIGION. J. Milton Yinger. The Macmillan Company, New York,
1963. 192 pp., $1.45, paper.
1200 NOTES, QUOTES AND ANECDOTES. By A. Naismith. Moody Press, Chicago, 1962.
237 pp., $3.95.
47
48 GRACE JOURNAL
CAN I TRUST MY BIBLE? By Eight Evangelical Scholars. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963.
190 pp., $3.50.
THE GRACE OF GOD. By Charles C. Ryrie. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963. 126 pp., $2.50.
LET EUROPE HEAR. By Robert P. Evans. Moody Press, Chicago, 1963. 528 pp., $5.95.
THE SOUL WERNER. By Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, 1963. 319 pp., $1.75, paper.
A DISTINCTIVE TRANSLATION OF GENESIS. By J. Wash Watts. Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub-
lishing Co., Grand Rapids, 1963. 154 pp., $1.95, paper.
ISRAEL AND THE NATIONS. By F. F. Bruce. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand
Rapids, 1963. 254 pp., $3.95.
HANDBOOK OF BIBLE HISTORY, Book III, THE GOSPELS. By George Stob. Wm. B. Eerd-
mans, Grand Rapids, 1963. 178 pp., paper.
THE GOSPEL MIRACLES, and MANY THINGS IN PARABLES. By Ronald S. Wallace. Wm.
B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963. 218 & 161 pp., $1.95, paper.
THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. By W. H. Griffith Thomas. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 303 pp., $1.95, paper.
TREATY OF THE GREAT KING: The Covenant Structure of Deuteronomy. By Meredith G.
Kline. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 149 pp., $3.50.
THE NEW TESTAMENT, AN EXPANDED TRANSLATION. By Kenneth S. Wuest. Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 624 pp., $2.95, paper.
MAN IN GOD'S WORLD. By Helmut Thielicke. Harper and Row, Publishers, New York,
1963. 223 pp., $3.95.
TWENTIETH CENTURY RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. By John Macquarrie. Harper and Row,
Publishers, New York, 1963. 415 pp., $5.00.
MATTER AND SPIRIT. By. R. C. Zaehner. Harper and Row, New York, 1963. 210 pp.,
$4.50.
CALVIN. By Francois Wendel, and trans, by Philip Mairet. Harper and Row, Publishers,
New York, 1963. 383 pp., $6.00.
GUILT GRACE AND GRATITUDE. By Donald J. Bruggink. The Half Moon Press, New York,
1963. 226 pp., $3.50.
GREEK-ENGLISH ANALYTICAL CONCORDANCE OF THE GREEK-ENGLISH NEW TESTA-
MENT. Compiled by J. Stegenga. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1963. 832 pp., $14.95.
A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, Vol. II. By J. Oliver Bus well.
Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich., 1963. 600 pp., $6.95.
THE NEW BIBLE SURVEY. By J. Lawrence Eason. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand
Rapids, 1963. 554 pp., $6.95.
ZECHARIAH. By Merrill F. Unger. Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1963. 275 pp., $6.95.
NONE OF THESE DISEASES. By S. I. McMillen. Fleming H. Revell Company, Westwood,
N. J., 1963. 158 pp., $2.95.
NEUROTICS IN THE CHURCH. By Robert James St. Clair. Fleming H. Revell Co., West-
wood, N. J., 1963. 251pp., $4.50.
THINGS MOST SURELY BELIEVED. Ed. by Clarence S. Roddy. Fleming H. Revell Co.,
Westwood, N. J., 1963. 191pp., $3.95.
THE BOOKS AND THE PARCHMENTS, Revised. By F. F. Bruce. Fleming H. Revell Co.,
Westwood, N. J., 1963. 287 pp., $4.00.
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11