The Unity Of The Bible

127 875 5

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

BOOKS BY H. H. ROWLEY
Published by The Westminster Press

The Unity of the Bible
The Re-discovery of the Old Testament

THE

UNITY

OF THE BIBLE

BY

H. H. ROWLEY

PHILADELPHIA
THE WESTMINSTER PRESS

First Published and Printed, 1953, in Great Britain
by The Carey Kingsgate Press Limited

Library of Congress Catalog Card No. : 55-6000

MADE AND PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

CONTENTS

Preface page vii

Abbreviations ix

I. Unity in Diversity. i

II. The Law and the Prophets. 30

III. God and Man. 62

IV. The Fulfilment of Promise. 90
V. The Cross. 122

VI. The Christian Sacraments. 149

Index , 191

THIS VOLUME IS INSCRIBED TO THE

FACULTY AND STUDENTS OF
THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY
IN GRATEFUL MEMORY OF THE FELLOWSHIP

I ENJOYED IN THEIR MIDST

AND IN MANY OTHER PLACES IN

THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

THROUGH THEIR GENEROUS INVITATION

The *W. T. Whitley Lectureship' was founded
in 1949 for the purpose of encouraging Baptist
scholarship, primarily (though not exclusively)
in Great Britain. The Lectures are so named in
grateful appreciation of the outstanding services
rendered by the Rev. Dr. William Thomas
Whitley, M.A., F.R.Hist.S., to the cause of
Christian learning and Baptist historical scholar-
ship*

PREFACE

WHEN I was honoured by the invitation to deliver the first
series of W. T. Whitley Lectures in Regent's Park College and
Rawdon College, I proposed to gather together material which
I had published in a number of separate papers in widely scattered
places and to show that it was all related to the theme of the unity
of the Bible. There is no part of my course of lectures with which
I have not dealt at some time or other, usually at greater length
than has been possible here. In their collection, however, I think
that something more is gained than the mere placing of them side
by side. For each can now be examined in the light of the others
and of the whole, and it is my hope that added cogency will be
found.

The emphasis on the unity of the Bible is not new with me, -for
many scholars have in recent years stressed it no less than I. Not
all that I have said figures in the work of others on this subject,
however, and if I have contributed something to its study I
shall have done as much as any man can hope to do. Scholarship,
like many other things, is essentially team work and every man
receives from his colleagues more than he can hope to give, and
is satisfied if he can bring some contribution to the totality of
truth.

For the delay in the publication of these lectures I would
express my regret. They were delivered at Regent's Park College
in January and February, 1951, and at Rawdon College in
January, 1952. It was my hope that in the interval they would
be prepared for the press. In the autumn of 1951, however, I
went to Denmark and Sweden, and then to Canada and the
United States to lecture at a number of institutions. The arrange-
ments for these visits were made in the early summer, and
involved me in the necessity of devoting the summer to tasks
which had been planned for the autumn, with the consequent

vii

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

rimes the essence of the Christian message was reduced to a few
simple principles that had no relation to the historical events out
of which the Christian religion was born. 1 The bonds between
the two Testaments were thus broken, and Jesus was regarded
less as the fulfilment of the hope of the Old Testament than as
the setter aside of the Old Testament and its religion. The
preacher was often at a loss to know what to do with the Old
Testament, and too frequently he largely ignored it. 2 When
later the writer became a missionary, he heard it seriously
lamented that the Old Testament had ever been translated into
Chinese, and even during his student days he was once sternly
rebuked by a well-known minister because he proposed to waste
his life by devoting it to so dead a subject as the Old Testament.
During the years of the writer's working life a very consider-
able change of climate has come over Biblical studies, and the
positions just broadly outlined are not the ones characteristic of
present day scholarship. Nevertheless, it must be said at the outset
that we owe an immense debt to the scholars of those earlier
days. There is diversity in the Bible, and with all the emphasis- on
the unity of the Bible which will be found in the present work,
the diversity in which that unity is found must not be forgotten. 3
It is impossible to reduce all to a flat uniformity, and the effort

1 A familiar example of this is Harnack's simplification: *If, however, we take a general
view of Jesus* teaching, we shall see that it may be grouped under three heads. They are
each of such a nature as to contain the whole, and hence it can be exhibited in its entirety
under any one of them.

1 Firstly t the kingdom of God and its coming.

* Secondly , God the Father and the infinite value of the human soul.

'Thirdly, the higher righteousness and the commandment of love. 9

Cf. What is Christianity? E. Tr. by T. B. Saunders, 3rd ed., 1912 reprint, p. 52. Cf.
ibid., p. 65: "The fact that the whole of Jesus' message may be reduced to these two heads
God as the Father, and the human soul so ennobled that it can and does unite with
Him shows us that the Gospel is in no wise a positive religion like the rest; that it
contains no statutory or particularistic elements; that it isj therefore, religion itself*

2 Cf. W. D. Davies, J.B.R., xx, 1952, p. 234a: 'Few scholars in the early years of this
century attempted closely to define the relation of the Old Testament to the New
Testament and they often approached the New Testament not through the portal of the
Old Testament, but through the somewhat alien classical disciplines/

8 Cf F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought, 1950, p. 29: 'This Pauline
statement of the doctrine of unity in diversity (i Cor. xii. 4-6) ought to be inscribed as
a motto over all our study of the New Testament.' "We might go farther and say 'over
all our study of the Bible*.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

to make Old Testament and New Testament say the same thing
is dishonouring to both Testaments. Without overstressing the
difference between prophetic and priestly religion, diversity of
emphasis may be recognized, and we can never go back on that
recognition of the prophets as real men in human situations,
which we owe to earlier scholars. Similarly in the New Testa-
ment, even though we draw our lines less sharply we may
rightly recognize the individuality of the various writers. It is
unnecessary to close our eyes to the diversity in order to insist
on the unity, or to close our eyes to the unity in order to insist
on the diversity. 1

It is not without significance that during the present century
there has been a growing sense of the fundamental unity of the
Churches. The gibe of those who belong to no church that it
will be tune for them to take Christianity seriously when the
Churches can agree as to what is Christianity and cease to present
so many rival brands has less point than it once had. The Churches
have learned to cooperate in ways once undreamed of, and have
recognized that more important than all their differences are the
things in which they are united. Nevertheless their diversity is
no less real than it was, and shows little sign of being eliminated.
This is not to say that equal validity belongs to their diversity,
and any claim that it did would be resisted by the representatives
of them all. It is but to say that while their diversity must be
freely recognized, their underlying unity is of greater significance
than the things on which they are divided.

In a somewhat similar way, the diversity of the Bible must be
recognized fully and clearly, even though we see a more pro-
foundly significant unity running through it all. Nor is it to be

1 Cf. C. H. Dodd, op. dt. t p. 32: *The unity of the New Testament is original, under-
lying the diversity of the individual writings'; F. C. Grant, op. at., pp. 45 : 'The most
significant thing is, of course, not the variety in New Testament Theology, with each
type to be studied in isolation, but the consistency, the unity, the unity in and through
variety, the consentient testimony, what might almost be called the "catholicity" of
the New Testament. . . . This is the result, not of later conformation or selection, . . .
but of loyalty and fidelity to a common origin in the apostolic proclamation of the gospel,
and of a participation in a common religious outlook rooted and nurtured in die Old
Testament.*

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

supposed that in arguing for the unity the writer is claiming an
equal value for all the varieties in which that unity is found. There
are differences of emphasis as between law and prophets, and it is
permissible to value the one above the other, even though rich
common elements are found beneath their antitheses. There are
some books of the Old Testament, such as Proverbs and Ecclesi-
astes and the Song of Songs, which on any showing fall below
the spiritual heights of either law or prophets, without being
deemed alien to the essential message of the Old Testament. In
the same way differences between the Old Testament and die
New, differences whose reality and importance may be recog-
nized by Jew and Christian alike, can be discerned without
excluding a bond of unity between the two Testaments which
is of the utmost significance. In the New Testament, again, the
very different atmosphere of the Gospels and the Epistles, or
even of the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel, may be
frankly acknowledged, without accepting the conclusion that
they were written by men who had irreconcilably different
ideas about the Christian faith. 1

So far as the Old Testament is concerned, it is important to
observe that during the last thirty years there has been a growing
interest in its theology. When the writer referred to this interest
in a book published during the War, 2 an American reviewer
observed: It may be true in North Wales that "there is a revived
interest in the theology o the Old Testament as against the
development of the religion of Israel", but this would scarcely
describe the scholarly trend in this country.' 3 The reviewer was
patently ignorant of what was happening in his own country, as
well as of what was happening in the rest of the world. For in
addition to articles in journals and books which testified of that

1 Cf, C. H. Dodd, The Bible To-day, 1946, p. 2: 'Whatever may be the religious
purport of the Bible, it is to be found in the whole range of the biblical presentation of
Hfe. . . . With all its variety there is after all a real unity in this literature.' Cf also
A. M. Hunter, The Unity of the New Testament, 1943, p. 7: 'There is a growing recognition
of the essential unity of the New Testament and of die need for synthesis.'

2 The Relevance of the Bible, 1941, p. 17.

3 Cf. The Christian Century, October 25, 1944.

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

interest, 1 there were published in America within a few years of
the appearance of the review two volumes devoted to the theo-
logy of both Testaments, 2 and a work devoted to Old Testament
theology, 3 by writers of very different Protestant schools, and a
translation into English of a German Roman Catholic work on
the same subject. 4 In addition an important Preface to Old Testa-
ment Theology bore its evidence of American interest in the sub-
ject. 6 In the decade preceding the "War three German works on
Old Testament theology appeared, 6 two of which have gone
into new editions since the War, while during the War
the Roman Catholic work which has now been translated
into English appeared in Germany. 7 This work has also been
translated into Italian. 8 A further posthumous work by a
Protestant scholar has been issued in Germany since the War. 9
A Dutch work on the theology of the Old Testament has

1 Cf J. Muilenburg, 'The Return to Old Testament Theology*, in Christianity and the
Contemporary Scene, ed. by R. C. Miller and H. H. Shires, 1943, pp. 30 f; J. D. Smart,
'The Death and Rebirth of Old Testament Theology', J.R., xxiii, 1943, pp. I fF., 125 fF.;
W. A. Irwin, "The Reviving Theology of the Old Testament, ibid., xxv, 1945, pp.
235 fF.; R. C. Dentan, 'The Nature and Function of Old Testament Theology', J.B.R ,
xiv, 1946, pp. 16 fF.; O. J. Baab, 'Old Testament Theology: its Possibility and Method-
ology', in The Study of the Bible Today and Tomorrow (ed. by H. R. Willoughby), 1947,
pp. 401 fF Cf. C. T. Craig, 'Strangely, it is in the Old Testament that the fullest develop-
ment of biblical theology has come during the present revival* (J.B.L., brii, 1943, p. 293).

2 Millar Burrows, An Outline of Biblical Theology, 1946; G. Vos, Biblical Theology:
Old and New Testaments, 1948.

3 O. J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 1949.

4 P. Heinisch, Theology of the Old Testament, E. Tr. by "W. Heidt, 1950.

5 R. C. Dentan, Preface to Old Testament Theology, 1950. In addition the following
American books, while not formally devoted to the study of Old Testament theology,
testify to the interest in the subject: W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity,
1940; G. E. Wright, The Challenge of Israel's Faith, 1944; R. B. Y. Scott, The Relevance
of the Prophets, 1944; W. A. Irwin, The Old Testament, Keystone of Human Culture, 1952.

8 E. Sellin, Tlieologie des Alien Testaments, 1933; W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alien
Testaments, I, 1933, H, 1935, HI, 1939; L. Kbhler, Theologie des Alien Testaments, 1936.
Cf. also J. J. Stamm, Erlosen imd Vergeben im Alien Testament, 1940, S. Herner, Suhne
und Vergebung in Israel, 1942, and "W. Eichrodt, Das MenschenverstSndnis des Alien Testa-
ments, 1944 (E. Tr. by K. and R. Gregor Smith, 1951); also C. Steuernagel, 'Alttesta-
mentHche Theologie und alttestamenthche Rehgionsgeschichte*, in Vom Alien
Testament (Marti Festschrift), 1925, pp. 266-273; O. Eissfeldt, 'Israelitisch-judische
Religionsgeschichte und alttestamentHche Theologie', Z.A.W., xliii (N.F it), 1925,
pp. 1-12; W. Eichrodt, 'Hat die alttestamentliche Theologie noch selbstSndige Bedeutung
mnerhalb der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft?', Z.A.W., xlvii (N.F. vi) f 1929, pp. 83-91.

7 P. Heinisch, Theologie des Alien Testamentes, 1940.

8 P. Heinisch, Teologia del Vecchio Testamento, Italian Tr. by D. Pintonello, 1950
* O. Procksch, Theologie des Alien Testaments, 1950.

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

now appeared, 1 and a French work is in course of pre-
paration. 2 This list will sufficiently show that the writer had a
more than insular interest in North Wales and its thought,
and that there was, and is, a revived interest in this subject. 3
Singularly enough, no work bearing the title Old Testament
Theology has been published in Great Britain in recent years,
though many books and articles have testified of the interest
it commands. 4 Principal H. Wheeler Robinson had pub-
lished the Prolegomena to such a work before his death, 5 and
had planned a full-scale treatment of it, but did not live to
complete it. 6

This interest in Old Testament theology testifies to the growing

1 Th. C. Vriezen, Hoofdlijnen der Theologie van het Oude Testament, 1949.

2 E. Jacob, Theologie de I'Anden Testament, to be published by Delachaux and NiestlS
in the series 'Manuels et Precis de Theologie'. Cf. also J. Guillet, Themes Bibliaues, 1950,
and earlier J. Guitton, Le Developpement des Iddes dans VAncien Testament, 1947, and
A* Gehn, Les Idles Mattresses de VAncien Testament, 1948. Also F. Michaeh, Dteu a I' mage
de VHomme, 1950.

3 It should be added that in an article reviewing Dentan's above-mentioned work,
E. R. Lacheman challenged the value of this revived interest (J.B R., xix, 1951, pp. 71 F.),
and concluded: 'I cannot see what an Old Testament theology could do that a history of
the religion of the Old Testament could not do much better* (p. 75a).

4 H Wheeler Robinson published a short sketch of "The Theology of the Old Testa-
ment* in Record and Revelation, 1938, pp. 303-348. There have been many books written
in the field of Old Testament or Biblical theology, though not dealing formally and
systematically with the subject, or monographs on individual doctrines, e.g., "W. J.
Phythian-Adams, The Call of Israel, 1934, The Fulness of Israel, 1938, The People and the
Presence, 1942; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Salvation, 194.1, The Bible Doctrine
of Man, 1951; H. H. Rowley, The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, 1946, The Biblical
Doctrine of Election, 1950; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944;
H. Knight, The Hebrew Prophetic Consciousness, 1947 (Part 2, is devoted to Theology);
C. R. North, The Thought of the Old Testament, 1946. Of recent articles in which the
problems attaching to the treatment of the theology of the Old Testament are considered,
the following may be noted: N. W. Porteous, 'Towards a Theology of the Old Testa-
ment*, S.J.T., i, 1948, pp. 136 flF., 'Semantics and Old Testament Theology*, O.T.S.,
viii, 1950, pp. I f; C. R. North, 'Old Testament Theology and the History of Hebrew
Religion', SJ.T., ii, 1949, pp. 113 ff.; A. S. Herbert, 'Is there a Theology of the Old
Testament?*, E.T., K, 1949-50, pp. 361 ff. For a survey of recent work in the field of Old
Testament theology, cf. N. W. Porteous, 'Old Testament Theology*, in The Old Testa-
ment and Modern Study (ed. by H. H. Rowley), 1951, pp. 311 ff.

6 Inspiration and Revelation in the Old Testament, 1946.

A. R. Johnson is publishing a series of monographs which together will constitute
his prolegomena to the study of Biblical Theology. Of these three have been issued:
The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, 1943; The Cultic Prophet in Ancient
Israel, ip44; The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1949. Some of the
articles in the Theologisches IVorterbuch zum Neuen Testament (ed. by G. Kittel) have been
published in an English translation made by J. R. Coates in the series 'Bible Key Words'

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

sense of the unity of the Old Testament. 1 So long as its parts
were set over against one another, and their diversity emphasized
to the neglect of their unity, it was out of the question to discuss
the theology of the Old Testament. The very term implies a
unity which was felt to be lacking. That a wider unity of the
Bible is being increasingly recognized is evidenced by the
demand for commentaries which offer a Christian interpretation
of the Old Testament. While there are obvious dangers in such
a demand, it is right that we should view the Old Testament in
terms of that to which it has led as well as of that out of which
it arose. The full significance of Magna Carta is not seen merely
in the study of the reign of King John, any more than the full
significance of the invention of the wheel is to be found in the
first primitive vehicle in which it was used. Ideas and inventions,
once launched, have a life of their own, which their creators
cannot foresee. Similarly the spiritual ideas which were given
to men through the leaders of Israel, and which were enshrined
in the Old Testament, had a life which extended into the New
Testament, as well as into post-Biblical Judaism. 2

It will be perceived already that the kind of unity which the
writer sees in the Bible is a dynamic unity and not a static unity.
He recognizes development, and in particular development
from the Old Testament to the New. Yet, lest he be misunder-
stood, let it be said here, as he has often said elsewhere, that it is
not to be supposed that development was brought about by the
unfolding of the human spirit through the mere passage of time.

and all of these review the teaching of the Old Testament on these doctrines. The volumes
so far issued are Love, by G Quell and E. Stauffer, 1949, The Church, by K. L. Schmidt,
1950, 5m, by G. Quell, G. Bertram, G. Stdhlin, and W. Grundmann, 1951, Righteousness,
by G. Quell and G. Schrenk, 1951, Apostleship, by K. H. Rengstorf, 1952, and Gnosis,
by R. Bultmann, 1952.

1 C H. H. Rowley, 'The Unity of the Old Testament', BJ.RL., raix, 194.5-46,
pp. 326-358, and separately Cf. also the chapter "The Unity of the Bible', in The Relevance
of the Bible, pp. 77 ff., and Mary E. Lyman, 'The Unity of the Bible', J.B.R., xiv, 194.6,
pp. 5 ff.

2 Cf. C. H. Dodd, According to the Scriptures, 1952, p. 131: *It would not be true of any
literature which deserves to be called great, that its meaning is restricted to that which
was explicitly in the mind of the author when he wrote. On the contrary, it is a part of
what constitutes the quality of greatness in literature that it perpetuates itself by unfolding
ever new richness of unsuspected meaning as time goes on.*

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

There is no automatic spiritual growth of mankind, and the
Bible nowhere tells the story of such a growth. It records how
men of God, acting under a direction which they believed to
be of God, mediated ideas and principles to men. It does not
tell how men by the exercise of their minds "wrested the secrets
of life and the universe from a reluctant Unknown, but how God
laid hold of them and revealed Himself through them. If there
is any truth in this, then a unity of the Bible is to be expected.
If God was revealing Himself, then there should be some unity
about the revelation, since it was the same Being Who was
being revealed. There is still room for diversity, since God was
revealing Himself to men of limited spiritual capacity and
could only reveal to each what he was capable of receiving. 1
There are branches of Higher Mathematics which no one could
apprehend without a long and exacting process of preliminary
teaching. Similarly, there are secrets of the spirit which could
only be imparted to men in the measure of their spiritual capacity
to receive them. Moreover, since God chose to reveal Himself
not alone to men, but through them, He was limited by the
medium that He chose. That is why the full revelation in human
personality required the Incarnation. The variety of the levels
of the various parts of the Bible is then not surprising, and it
does not spring from any variation in God, but from the variety
of the levels of the persons whom He used.

Here I may appear to be passing from the realm of the scientific
study of the Bible into the realm of dogma. To study the Bible
simply as a human story, and to treat of men's beliefs about God
without asking what validity they have, is sometimes thought to
be the scientific study of the Bible. This tacitly assumes that there
was no validity in their beliefs, since if there was validity, and if
men were genuinely moved by God, the story cannot be fully
understood while ignoring the supremely important factors in
it. Science seeks to trace results back to their causes, and causes

1 Cf. J. W. C. Wand, The Authority of the Scriptures. 1949, p. 62: 'Inspiration does not
put man's common faculties to sleep while God is left alone to speak, but it quickens these
faculties beyond the point of genius.'

8

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

forward to their results, and any truly scientific study of the Bible
must ask for all the facts of a situation, and not merely for a
selection of them. If we merely study the message of the Bible in
the light of the political and social circumstances out of which
its books were born, we are just as guilty of a dogmatic approach
as the theologian may be. For it is just as dogmatic to suppose
that God is not a vital factor in human affairs as to suppose that
He is.

We are sometimes challenged to prove that God exists, and
that He is active in the world. It is supposed that the admission
that this cannot be proved in the same sort of way as that whereby
we can prove that the three angles of a triangle equal two right
angles means that we are left with a groundless faith. It is forgotten
that it can no more be proved in that sort of way that God does
not exist and that He is not active in the world. If abstract logic
and mathematical reasoning alone can be employed, and nothing
short of rigid proof be accepted, we are inevitably left with an
arid agnosticism. But it is quite irrational to limit ourselyes to
abstract reasoning of this kind. We are all familiar with the
problem of the hare and the tortoise, in which we are faced with
the fact that a hare that ran ten times as fast as a tortoise and that
gave the tortoise a certain start would find that by the time it
reached the tortoise's starting point the tortoise had advanced one
tenth of the distance, and that however often it repeated this
performance it would still find the tortoise a further one tenth
ahead, leading to the conclusion, which experience would soon
prove to be fallacious, that the hare could never overtake the
tortoise. All that is really proved is that within ^e .distance
covered by the series ^ ' -

IO IOO IOOO

the hare would not overtake the tortoise, and this means that
within the time that the hare would take to cover i^ times the
distanceoriginaUyseparatingtheniitcouldnotovertakethetortoise.
Within the limits of this geometrical progression there could be

9

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

no overtaking. The fallacy lies in first limiting ourselves to this
progression and then drawing a conclusion that goes beyond
its limits. A similar fallacy is to be seen in the conclusion that
because the Being and activity of God cannot be proved by
abstract reasoning, the belief in God is an unscientific dogma.

Science is by no means limited to abstract reasoning, and it
works with a great number of hypotheses for which it can ad-
vance no absolute proof. Yet they are not groundless hypotheses.
There are many lines of evidence that point towards them and
make them reasonable hypotheses, but they are not subject to
rigid demonstration. The scientist tests his hypotheses in every-
way he can, and the more they stand his tests the more faith he
has in them, even though he continues to recognize that they
are theories, which are not susceptible of absolute proof. He is
too scientific to profess the sort of agnosticism about them which
leads him to ignore them. He relies on them and uses them, and
they enable him to make the advances which have revolutionized
modern life.

It is just as scientific in our sphere for us to test in every way we
can the faith that the activity of God in human experience and
personality is recorded in the Bible, treating this not as a dogma
which must be accepted without question but as a faith to be
examined, and to ask whether it may be reasonably established,
and not whether it can be rigidly proved. The scientific method
must be appropriately applied to each separate discipline. But
when it is applied, what survives may be trusted without dis-
loyalty to the scientific spirit.

The Bible records that Moses was sent by God into Egypt to
lead the Israelites out, and that in obedience to this commission
Moses went to Egypt and promised the Israelites deliverance.
That deliverance was effected, but not by the exercise of any
power which Moses or the Israelites possessed. In the supreme
moment it was effected by powers of Nature, which lie beyond
human control. This story hangs together as a consistent whole.
If Moses was genuinely commissioned and inspired by God, and
the promise of deliverance came from God and if its fulfilment

10

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

was effected by God, all would be intelligible. But as soon as we
begin to discard any of these elements, we find ourselves in
difficulties. If Moses was not really called by God, but merely
fancied himself to be so called, we are left without any explanation
of the fulfilment of his promises. If they arose from nothing
deeper than his own wishes and dreams, there lay here no power
to set in motion the forces of Nature for their fulfilment. If, on
the other hand, we suppose that it was by a fortunate coincidence
that the forces of Nature effected the deliverance, we are left
without any explanation of the prior confidence of Moses and
the promise of deliverance which he brought. To distribute the
elements of the story amongst self-deception and chance is to
offer no explanation; to find the hand of God in it is to find a
simple and sufficient explanation.

"We may avoid this, of course, by casting doubt on the histor-
icity of the -whole story. If we wish to be scientific, however, we
must not be content with an irrational doubt that merely relieves
us of -what we do not find it convenient to accept. That is as
unscientific as an unquestioning credulity. It is undoubted that
the present form of the story is from a much later time than the
age of Moses, and it is well known that tradition can influence
the form of the story it transmits. We cannot rely on the details
of a tradition which may have been handed down orally for a
long time, even though we recognize that tradition often shows
great tenacity in small as well as in great matters. For along with
tenacity here there may be accretion there. All this is quite
insufficient to cast doubt on the main outlines of the story, as
they have been set out above. We may leave out of account all
the frills of the story, which may or may not be accretions, and
build only on the central elements of the tradition, which may on
every ground be accepted as reliable. There is no serious reason
to doubt that a body of Israelites was once in Egypt and kter
came forth. This event was too deeply stamped in the memory
and tradition of Israel to be wholly groundless. There is no
reason to doubt that Moses went into Egypt from the desert to
bring them forth. No rational explanation of the creation of such

II

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

a tradition can be offered, if it contained no truth. There is no
reason to doubt that the deliverance of the Israelites was not
effected by their own activity and power, but by forces beyond
their control and beyond the control of Moses. No people would
have invented the story that it and its leader were passive in the
supreme moment of peril, if they were not. There is no reason to
doubt that Moses promised deliverance in the name of Yahweh,
and that after deliverance the people committed themselves to
this God in a sacred covenant. If this is denied, we are left without
any clue to much in the Old Testament that finds its simple
explanation in terms of this. If all this story is denied any histor-
icity, we have not only to explain how and why it came to be
invented, but what was the true origin of that which is explained
in this story, and why the true origin was wholly suppressed,
leaving itself to be recreated out of nothing today. The way of
the sceptic is much harder than the way of faith, and an unreason-
ing prejudice can lay no claim to be called scientific.

Nor are we in better case even if we dispose of the story of
Moses by mere denial. There can be no reasonable doubt that
the whole of the Old Testament was written before the birth of
Jesus. Throughout the Old Testament we find that it looks
beyond itself to a fulfilment that lay in the future. In remarkable
ways we find in the New Testament the fulfilment of the antici-
pations of the Old, and at these we shall look later. If the antici-
pations rested on the activity of the Spirit of God in men, and the
fulfilment represented the activity of God in history and experi-
ence, we have a sufficient explanation of all. But if we wish to
reject this explanation, we are hard put to it to find another which
is more scientific and more satisfying. If the anticipations had no
basis but the false claim that men were the mouthpiece of God,
their fulfilment becomes a problem. There could have been no
power in such self-deception to influence future events. On the
other hand, we cannot suppose that the anticipations were a
reflection of the fulfilment in subsequently created stories, since
the anticipations were quite certainly written down before the
fulfilment took place,

12

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

Again, -when we come to the New Testament, we find that
Jesus believed that His life and death were of universal and
enduring significance, and that in Him the fulfilment of many
of the deepest hopes of the Old Testament was to be found.
That His expectations have been realized in ways that would
have seemed fantastic to any of his contemporaries who rejected
His claims cannot be denied. Once more, if we find the activity
of God in the Christ Who promised and in the historical fulfil-
ment, we have a sufficient explanation of all. But if we reject this,
we find ourselves in difficulties. If Jesus was deluded, there could
be no power in His delusions to effect their own fulfilment. On
the other hand we cannot explain the delusions by the fulfilment.
We may try to turn the edge of this by attributing the relevant
sayings to the evangelists, or to others than Jesus who composed
them after His death. Yet by the time when the Gospels were
written there was little in the historical position of the Church
to justify these hopes, and their creation out of the womb of the
Church's thought could still not explain the fulfilment that has
been experienced.

In all of these, and in other cases that could be added to them,
the single hypothesis that the finger of God is to be found in
expectation and in fulfilment is adequate, whereas if this is denied
no single explanation of all can be found, but a variety of unrelated
suggestions must be made in the vain effort to account for each
separate fragment of the whole, and none of the suggestions is
really adequate for the work that is demanded of it. It is surely
more in accordance with scientific method to adopt the one
hypothesis that is sufficient. This is neither to accept it as dogma,
irrationally received on authority from some other human
source, nor to claim that it can be proved in a way that dispenses
with faith. 1 Reason and faith are alike involved, just as reason
and faith are both involved in the acceptance of scientific theory.

This long digression has been necessary to make it clear that

1 Cf. the writer's Joseph Smith Lecture on The Authority of the Bible, 1950, where
it is argued that the authority of the Bible is ultimately the authority of the God Who is
behind the Bible, and "Whose hand is revealed in correspondences which could not be
mutually determined.

13

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

when the writer speaks of the dynamic unity of the Bible, he is
not thinking in terms of a merely human development that
leaves God out of account, nor yet falling back on traditional
dogma that leaves reason out of account. It is sometimes suggested
that the real issue is between humanism and faith, and it is for-
gotten that humanism is as much a faith as the Christian faith.
The important question is which is the true faith, and that means
which is most deeply grounded on evidence and sustained by
reason.

By the use of the term dynamic unity it is clear that it is not
proposed to argue that the whole of the Bible is on a flat level
of inspiration and authority, and that all so completely presents
the same message that texts can be culled indiscriminately from
all parts of the Bible and made the rule of life. 1 Whatever
definition of the inspiration of Scripture men may offer there is
none who really holds this in practice. Not a little in the Old
Testament is superseded in the New, and even where there is no
explicit supersession Christians recognize that whatever is alien
to the spirit of Christ and His revelation of God has no validity
for them. In other words, Christ is for them the standard whereby
the Old Testament must be judged as a revelation of the character
and will of God. When Jesus said *Ye have heard that it was said
of old time . . . But I say unto you', 2 He declared that not
everything in the Old Testament is of enduring authority for men.

There are some who would maintain that what is superseded
in the Old Testament represents what was the authoritative will
of God for men in the particular age and in the particular circum-
stances at the time when it was given, and who find God to be
wholly responsible for every statement found in the Bible. That
this is not satisfying is clear from the fact that conceptions of God
which fall below the standards of the highest in the Old Testament
are found in some passages, and it cannot be that the God Who
revealed Himself deliberately gave men false ideas about Himself.
Samuel believed that God delighted in wholesale and unprovoked

1 C the writer's Relevance of the Bible, pp. 21 ff.
* Matt. v. 21 , 27 , 33 , 38 , 43

14

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

massacre, 1 and Micaiah that God could send forth a lying spirit
to deceive men. 2 David believed that God could find pleasure in
the hanging of Saul's descendants in Gibeah to atone for some
crime of Saul's long years before, 3 though we are told elsewhere
that it is contrary to the will of God for children to be put to
death for their fathers* sins. 4 In the New Testament we read that
no man hath seen God at any time. 5 Yet in the Old Testament we
have many stories of men who saw God and talked with him as
man to man. 6 In all such disagreements it is important first of all
to remember that each passage must be read in the light of its
own literary form, and a wooden literalism, that we should
never bring to poetry, should not be brought to forms of literature
that have not a little in common with poetry. It is important also
to remember the human element in all of these situations.

The Divine inspiration came through the organ of men's
personality. Though they were men who were consecrated to
God and sensitive to His Spirit, they were nevertheless imperfect
men, with false presuppositions and with limited outlook. While
the revelation which was given through them was the revelation
of God, it bore the marks of the persons through whom it came,
and its imperfections derive from them and not from the source
of the revelation. Nevertheless and this is the important thing
there was revelation through them, and in so far as there was
revelation of God there was something of enduring importance
to men.

Whenever we approach the Bible, and especially the Old
Testament, which covers so long a period of time, we must
maintain a historical sense, and read everything first of all in the
setting of its own age and then in the context of the whole
unfolding revelation of which it forms a part. The unity is the
unity of a process and a development. Within the unity of a

1 1 Sam. xv. 3. It is important to note that according to the chronology of i Kings vi. I,
the 'provocation* which Samuel alleged took place more than three hundred and fifty
years earlier, and on the shortest possible chronology it would be not less than one
hundred and fifty years earlier.

2 i Kings xxii. 22. 8 2 Sam. xxL 1-14. 4 Deut. xxiv. i<5.

5 i John iv. 12. * C especially Gen. xvHL

15

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

man's personality there is growth and development. The ideas
of his youth are not identical with the ideas of advancing age;
yet neither are they wholly different and unrelated. A continuing
thread runs through them, and though there may be modification
there is not a continual new beginning. The moments are fleeting
and the experience of today will be gone tomorrow. Yet not
wholly. By memory the experience of the past is retained in
some measure, and there is a deposit in the stuff of personality of
the things through which a man has lived. Moreover, the effects
of his will are seen in his personality. The things he has chosen
to do have modified his character, and he may have grown better
or worse, either continuously or by turns, through the years.
The continuing thread that marks the unity of his personality
may not be set in a straight line. The unity of the Bible is of this
kind, though given in die experience of a people and not in a
single life. The experience, character, and will of the persons who
mark the successive moments of the process all left their mark on
the process. For each moment was more than a moment; it
belonged to the whole.

That this is not to eliminate God from the story, and to make
it into the record of a merely human development, has already
been said. In. a man's individual experience God may have
played a part, and the influences which have moulded him may
not be resolvable simply into the effects of the human environment
in which he has lived and the human influences he has felt,
together with the deposits in character of the exercise of his will.
Often he may have resisted the Divine influence, but sometimes
he may have been susceptible to it and have experienced its
moulding power. It is in a comparable way that divine and
human elements may be found interwoven in the process of
revelation recorded in the Bible. But here the continuing thread
that gives unity to the record is the divine element. For in the
Bible we do not have a record of the life and thought of Israel,
and then of the Christian Church in its beginnings, but a record
of Divine revelation. The unity is not the unity of the spirit of
Israel and of the Church, but the unity of the Divine revelation

16

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

given in the context of history and through the medium of
human personality. It is because it is given in the context of that
history that we must preserve a historical sense if we would
understand it.

In some quarters there is a tendency to return to an allegorical
interpretation of the Old Testament in an effort to rehabilitate
the Old Testament for a generation that so largely ignores it. 1
It is pointed out that in the New Testament we sometimes find
this kind of interpretation. Paul could speak of the Israelite
crossing of the Red Sea as baptism. 2 In earlier ages Christian
interpreters carried this kind of interpretation to great extremes, 8
and the parts of the Old Testament which are the least prepossess-
ing have been transformed for readers by the simple process of
ignoring their historical content and reading them as allegories of
spiritual experience. The supreme example of this kind of
interpretation has been provided by the Song of Songs. 4 Inter-
preters who felt that there would be something shocking in reading
its sensuous figures in terms of human love, despite their oft-
repeated profession that marriage is a Divine ordinance and that
the union of a man and woman may be fittingly consecrated at
the altar of God, have read it in terms of the things that interested
them. The breasts of the bride, enclosing a sachet of myrrh, 5
have been understood to mean the Old and New Testaments

1 The early Reformers firmly rejected allegorical exegesis. Luther declared roundly
that 'allegories are empty speculations, and as it -were the spume of Holy Scripture,
(cf. Werke, "Weimar edition, xlii, 1911, p. 173: inanes speculations et tenquam spumam
sacrae scripturae}, and went so far as to describe allegory as a harlot, seductive to the idle
(ibid., xlii, 1912, p. 688: est enim allegoria tanquam formosa meretrix, quae ita blandiUtr
hominibus, ut non posstt non amari, praesertim ab hominibus otiosis, qui sunt sine tentatione}.
He did, however, allow it a certain value as an ornament of exegesis (ibid., xlii, p. 173 *
licet etiam allegoriis ceu omamento et floribus quibusdam uti, quibus ittustretur historia seu
pinga tur). Cf. G. Ebeling, 'Die Anfange von Luthers Hermeneutik', Z.Th.K., xlviii,
I95I pp- 17^-230.

2 i Cor. x. 2. C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New, 1952, p. 5, gives some further
familiar examples, but observes that what is surprising is that this method of exegesis
is used so little in the New Testament.

3 This method of exegesis was especially characteristic of the Alexandrian school,
and particularly of Origen, of whom F. "W. Farrar observes: 'His system rose in reality
not from reverence for the Scriptures, but from a dislike to their plain sense which had
at all costs to be set aside* (History of Interpretation, 1886, p. 191).

4 Cf. the writer's essay "The Interpretation of the Song of Songs*, in The Servant of the
Lord and other Essays, 1952, pp. 187 rf. 5 Ct. i. 13.

17

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

with Christ in between, 1 or the breasts of the believer, between
which the memory of Christ's Cross is cherished. 2 The spring
enclosed and the fountain sealed 3 have been interpreted in terms
of the Virgin Mary 4 or of the Church. 5 The sixty queens and
eighty concubines 6 have been interpreted of the true Church
and the sectarians, 7 and the injunction to take the little foxes
that spoil the vineyards 8 has been held to warrant the persecution
of heretics and schismatics. 9 This is to abandon a historical sense
and to open the door to undisciplined fancy; and on such prin-
ciples any text may be made to mean anything we please. What-
ever may be said for it homiletically, it can claim no standing as
exegesis.

It was once the writer's lot to listen to a sermon on the text: 'But
my servant Caleb . . . because he hath followed me wholly', 10
in which the preacher explained that the Hebrew language is
fond of metaphors, and the word 'wholly* is a picture of a ship
with all sails set 'bellying to the wind*. The whole of the sermon
was built on this picture, and the terms of the preacher's descrip-
tion came as a refrain at regular intervals. The good man did not
know a word of Hebrew, and was unaware that the word
'wholly* has no separate equivalent in the text with which he
was dealing. The Hebrew says simply 'because he hath filled up
after me*. The preacher had doubtless found some commentary
which said: 'The Hebrew idiom is "hath filled up", as a vessel',
or something like this, and had misunderstood the meaning of
the word Vessel', and let his imgination do the rest. Whatever
virtues the sermon had and the hearers were loud in their
praises it had none as exegesis. With all the writer's sympathy
for the demand for a Christian interpretation of the Old Testa-

1 So Cyril of Alexandria (Migne, P.G., box, 1864, col. 1281). Cf. Philo Carpasius
(Migne, P.G-, ad, 1863, col. 56).

2 So pseudo-Cassiodorus (Migne, P.L., Ixx, 1865, coL 1060) 3 Ct. iv. 12.
4 So Justus Urgellensis (Migne, PX., bevii, 1865, col. 978).

8 So pseudo-Cassiodorus (loc cit., coL 1078). 6 Ct. vi. 8.

7 So Bishop Wordsworth (The Book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon,
in The Holy Bible with Notes and Introductions, IV, 3, 1868, p. 148).

8 Ct. ii. 15. So J. Durham (Clavis Cantid, 1669, PP- 143 ff.).

10 Num. xiv. 24- The preacher preferred 'wholly* to the 'fully* of A.V. and R.V.,
because he found this word elsewhere, in Num. xxxii. 12, Deut. i. 36.

18

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

ment, he can muster no sympathy for this. The foundation for
all exegesis must lie in the understanding of the text as its author
and its first hearers or readers understood it, governed by a
historical sense and the effort to place ourselves in the setting out
of which it came. We may then go on to consider the place of
its message in the whole process of revelation contained in the
Bible, and the enduring message for us which it may contain, to
be reinterpreted in the context of our life and in the terms of our
experience. The maintenance of a historical sense does not mean
that we read the Bible merely as the history of ancient situations.
It but means that we read it as the Word of God mediated in
the context of that history, but transcending in its significance
the history which provided its background and its occasion.

There are some who turn to typology, and who find in the
Old Testament a prefiguring of the New. 1 This method of
interpretation treats the essential meaning and purpose of the

1 On recent trends in the interpretation of Scripture cf. J. Coppens, Les Harmonies des
deux Testaments, revised ed., 1949, 2nd Vom chnstlichen Verstandnis des Alien Testaments,
1952, where a considerable literature is surveyed and an extensive bibliography is given.
Cf. also L. Cerfaux, J. Coppens, andj. Gribomont, Probfemes et Mlthoded'extgese thdologique,
I95! J- Coppens, Un Nouvel Essai d'Hermeneutique bibhqtte, 1952, and Nouvelles Re-
flexions sitr les divers Sens des Saintes Ventures, 1952. On the typological interpretation of
the Bible cf. J. Damelou, Sacramentttm Futun, 1950 (on which cf. A. Bentzen's review in
Erasmus, iv, 1951, cols. 213 flf.); F. Michaeli, 'La "Typologie" biblique', Fot et Vie, 1,
*95 2 PP- ii ft; S. Amsler, 'Ou en est la typologie de 1'Ancien Testament', E.ThJL.,
xxvii, 1952, pp. 75 ff.; G von Rad, 'Typologische Auslegung des Alten Testaments',
Evangelische Theologie, xn, 1952-53, pp. 17 ff. C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the
New, 1952, pp. 5 ff, contrasts the New Testament use of the Old with that of Philo,
and argues that in the New Testament, despite occasional resort to allegory, the history
of the Old Testament is treated seriously. Cf. von Rad, loc. dt., pp. 30 flf. Wllhelni Vischer
goes beyond allegory and typology in reading the New Testament back into the Old.
Cf. Das Christuszeugnis des Alten Testaments, i, 6th ed., 1943, ii, 1942 (the first volume
has appeared in E. Tr. by A. B. Crabtree, The Witness of the Old Testament to Christ,
1949). N. W. Porteous, The Old Testament and Modem Study, ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1951,
pp. 338 f., says: 'The' New Testament meaning is read into the Old Testament passage
and so Vischer knows beforehand what the latter must mean. ... In his discussion
of Jacob's wiesthng with the mysterious opponent at the Jabbok, he states roundly with
Luther: "Without the slightest contradiction this man was not an angel, but our Lord
Jesus Christ, who is the eternal God and yet was to become a man whom the Jews would
crucify." This is certainly very muddled theology. Generally speaking, Vischer's whole-
sale use of allegory implies that he is not taking history seriously and therefore not taking
biblical revelation seriously/ From this summary it will be seen that the present writer's
position is widely different from that of Vischer. It is therefore surprising that W. D.
Davies, _/ J3..R., xx, 1952, p. 234, should mention them together in a single sentence, and
give his readers the impression that both justify the verdict of Pfeiffer: *If this is a fair
sample of the result of the biblical research of our time, we have truly reverted to the

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Old Testament as a prefiguring of the experience of Christ or of
the Church. It can think of the sacrificial ritual of the Law as
designed to foreshadow the sacrifice of the Cross, and can ignore
the background of Israelite and non-Israelite practice out of
which the institution of sacrifice developed, and treat it simply
as an anticipation of the sacrifice of Christ, to prepare for that
event. Later we shall consider the patterns which recur in the Old
and New Testaments and the relations between those patterns.
In many ways the writer finds a correspondence between the
Old Testament and the New, but that does not mean that he
reads the Old in terms of the New, or imposes the patterns of
the New upon the Old. Each Testament is to be read first and
foremost in terms of itself and its own Sitz im Leben. Its insti-
tutions and its ideas are to be examined for themselves before
they are related to one another, and attention is not to be devoted
exclusively to the elements that can be so related. Nevertheless,
just because there is a continuing thread there is a process that
leads from one to the other, and because there is in both Testa-
ments the revelation of the same God, it is not surprising that
there should be recurring patterns. The character of God is seen
in His revelation, and because His character is one its stamp is
to be found in the diversity of the forms of the revelation.

Reference has been made to a unity within a process, and to the
importance of considering the separate parts of the Bible both for

Middle Ages'. On Vischer's exegetical principles cf F. Baumgartel, Verheissung, 1952,
pp. 91 ff. Baximgartel recognizes that Vischer is on the right track (p. 92), but maintains
that his use of typology is methodically untenable (p. 93). Elsewhere Baumgartel observes
that the New Testament use of typology is foreign to our thinking and unconvincing
(p. 83). It is inadmissible to interpret the Old Testament as it was not meant to be under-
stood, yet we may legitimately recognize that above and behind the Old Testament
stands the God Whose promise therein finds its realization in Christ (p 85). With this
the present writer is in broad agreement. For an example of the interpretation of the
Jacob story above referred to at the opposite pole to Vischer's, cf. C. C. McCown,
J.B.L., bdii, 1944, p. 331 f.: "The story can be regarded only as a piece of chauvinistic
patriotism proving to the Israelite that eventually his nation would prevail over all
others in spite of the dark night through which they had to suffer and the handicaps that
beset them. A common myth motif, of the struggle between a man and a superhuman
being is used to ... point to Israel's future triumph.' On the sensus ptenwr, defended
especially by J. Coppens, cf. R. Bierberg, C.B.Q., x, 1948, pp. 182 ff. For a careful study
of exegetical principles cf. L. H. Bleeker, Hermeneutiek van het Oude Testament, 1948
Cf. further B. J. Alfrink, Over 'typologische* Exegese van het Oude Testament, 1945.

2O

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

themselves and as moments of the process. As an illustration of
what is meant we may take the work of Moses. This is of supreme
importance in the Old Testament record. 1 It has been already
said that the writer does not regard Moses as a shadowy figure,
of whose existence and work we cannot be very sure, 2 but that
he regards him, as a truly prophetic figure who was commissioned
by God to lead Israel out of Egypt and who, after leading them
out, took them to the sacred mount where they committed
themselves to God in the terms of the Covenant. His work was
achieved in the political and in the religious sphere, and both are
important. His religious work did not consist in the formulating
of certain ideas which arose in his own mind; it rested on his
political work and was inextricably interwoven with it. To that
we shall have occasion to return. Here it will suffice to observe
that in the religious ideas which were mediated to Israel through
Moses lay the seeds of almost all the creative ideas which are to
be found in the Old Testament, to be carried forward into the
New. This does not mean that the Pentateuch is to be approached
with an uncritical mind, or that the ideas of later times are to
be read back into the work of Moses. None of the main docu-
ments on which the Pentateuch rests can have been compiled
until long after the rime of Moses. The legal sections, in particular,
come from much later hands, and while many of die usages
which they embody are much older than the documents in
which they are enshrined, there is little which we can with
confidence ascribe to Moses. The Decalogue can, however, with
reasonable confidence be ascribed to him, 3 and this is of far

1 The writer has frequently dealt with, this question. C The Significance of Moses
and his Work', Religion in Education, 20, 1943-44, pp. 63 ft; The Rediscovery of the Old
Testament, pp. 77 F.; From Joseph to Joshua, 1950, pp. 155 fEJ. Muilenburg, Christianity
and the Contemporary Scene, p. 34, refers to 'the increasing respect for the traditions
centering about the figure of Moses*.

* E. Meyer questioned the historicity of Moses altogether. Cf. Die Israeliten und ihre
Nachbarstamme, 1906, p. 45 in. So also G. Hdlscher, Qeschichte der israelitischen und
jiidischen Religion, 1922, pp. 64 fF.

8 C the writer's 'Moses and the Decalogue', BJJI.L., xxxiv, 1951-52, pp. 81 fF.
(French Tr., by M. Simon, RJH.P.R., xxxii, 1952, pp. 7 fF.). J. P. Peters, J.BX., xr,
1901, p. 117, observes: ^Writers who have denied the Mosaic authorship of the Decalogue
have, in point of fact, reduced Moses to a nonentity, and offered no explanation of the
ethical impulse given by him.*

21

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

greater religious significance than all the details of priestly ritual.
That there has been expansion of the Decalogue is clear from the
comparison of its form in Exod. xx and that in Deut. v, where
different expansions of some of the commands can be found.
Leaving out the expansions, however, the Decalogue in its
original form may be accepted as given to Israel by Moses. Here
are the seeds of ethical monotheism, which is the supremely
important feature of Old Testament religion.

It is true that many scholars have attributed the Decalogue to
a time much later than that of Moses, and have ascribed the
achievement of ethical monotheism to the eighth and seventh
century prophets whose influence is thought to be reflected in
the Decalogue. 1 It would carry us too far here to examine that
view in detail and to show why the writer holds it to be unsound.
The ethical note in religion was struck long before the eighth
century prophets, and while it was developed by them in ways
that need not be underestimated, they built on earlier foundations.
The prophet who denounced the judicial murder of Naboth, 2
and the earlier prophet who rebuked the royal adulterer, 3 stood
in the succession of ethical prophets before the eighth century
dawned. But long before their time the seeds of ethical mono-
theism are to be found in the work of Moses, and it is because
they are to be found in his work that the writer can credit him
with the formulation of the Decalogue.

In recent years there is a tendency to credit Moses with mono-
theism. Scholars of eminence have argued that he was a full
monotheist. 4 Others, however, have sharply denied this. 5 It will

1 For references to a large number of writers who have followed this view, as well as
to those who have maintained the Mosaic origin of the Decalogue, c B.J.R.L., loc. at.,
pp. 81 , and RJFCJP.R., loc. cit. t pp. 7 flf.

2 i Kings xxi.

* 2 Sam. xii.

4 Cf. W. F. Albright, Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible, 1932, pp. 163 flf., From the
Stone Age to Christianity, 1940, pp. 196 flf. (cf. review by R. T. O'Callaghan, Onentalia,
xx, 1951, pp. 216-36); Homing James, A.Th JR.., xiv, 1932, pp. 130 flf.; G. E. Wright, The
Old Testament against its Environment, 1950, pp. 29 ft

* C T. J. Meek, 'Primitive Monotheism and the Religion of Moses', in University
of Toronto Quarterly, viii, 1939, pp. 180 flf., and 'Monotheism and the Religion of Israel',
JMJL., bi, 1942, pp. 21 flf.

22

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

be observed that here we are content to find in the work of
Moses the seeds of monotheism, rather than full and explicitly
formulated monotheism. 1 It cannot be established that he denied
that any god but Yahweh existed, and it is doubtful if he ever
considered the abstract notion of monotheism. On the other
hand, it can be established that he did not suppose that any other
god but Yahweh counted. Whether they existed or not was of
scant importance, since they were negligible. This is not mono-
theism, but it is the seed of monotheism. Yahweh's deliverance
of His people from Egypt is not represented as a contest between
Yahweh and the gods of Egypt, but between Yahweh and
Pharaoh. The gods of Egypt do not count as serious factors in
the story. We are told that the Israelites did not worship God
under the name Yahweh until Moses came to them in His name,
but that Yahweh adopted them as His people and gathered the
God they had hitherto worshipped into Himself. 2 If the view
that Yahweh had hitherto been worshipped by other people
is correct and this is a common view, though not universally
held by scholars 3 then up to that time Yahweh and El Shaddai
had been considered distinct, just as Yahweh and the gods of
Egypt were distinct. But from now on El Shaddai had no

1 Cf. the -writer's article The Antiquity of Israelite Monotheism*, E.T., Ixi, 1949-50,
PP- 333 ff- Cf. also "W. A. Lrwin, The Old Testament, Keystone of Human Culture, 1952,
p. 24: *This belief* i.e. Mosaic religion 'could lend itself to monotheistic evolution,
as it actually did if this premise is correct; but it was yet some distance short of the concept
of a single God of all men everywhere.' Cf. also G. "W. Anderson, The Old Testament
and Modern Study, ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1951, pp. 290 , esp. p. 290: There is some danger
of lapsing into mere logomachy in the debate about Mosaic monotheism; and it is well
to remember both that the label matters less than the content of the packet, and also that
it is inconvenient to have the same label for different things." 2 Cf. Exod. vi. 2

8 Amongst the scholars who reject this view are A. R. Gordon (The Early Traditions
of Genesis, 1907, pp. 106 fF), E. Konig (Geschichte der alttestamentliche Religion, 1912,
pp. 162 fF.), P. Volz (Mose und sein Werk, 2nd ed., 1932, p. 59), W. J. Phythian-Adams
(The Call of Israel, 1934, pp. 72 fF.), T. J. Meek (Hebrew Origins, 2nd ed., 1950, pp. 94 ff.),
M. Buber (Moses, 1947, pp. 94 fF.), F. V. Winnett (The Mosaic Tradition, 1949, p. 69);
while amongst those who accept it are K. Budde (Religion of Israel to the Exile, 1899,
pp. 17 fF.), T. K. Cheyne (E.B., iii, 1902, col. 3208), G. A. Barton (A Sketch of Semitic
Origins, 1902, pp. 272 fF., and Semitic andHamitic Origins, 1934* pp. 332 ), H. Gressmarm
(Mose und seine Zeit, 1913, pp. 434 , 447 fF.), J. Morgenstern (H.U.C.A., iv, 1927,
pp. 44 fF.), W. Vischer (Jahwe der Cott Kains, 1929), A. Lods (Israel, E. Tr., by S. H.
Hooke, 1932, pp. 3I7, 320 f), Oesterley and Robinson (Hebrew Religion, 2nd ed.,
I 937 PP- 148 n\, 156), A. J. "Wensinck (*De oorsprongen van het Jabwisme*, in Semietische
Studie'n uit de Nalatenschap van A.J. Wensinck, 1941, pp. 23 fF.).

B 23

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

reality, save in so far as He was identified with Yahweh. In this
there was incipient monotheism. With our monotheistic point
of view we find nothing difficult here. If there is One God, and
beside Him is no other, then all who truly worship God, by
whatever name they call Him, worship this One God. Syncretism
is a familiar phenomenon in the history of religion. For a variety
of reasons people have identified two hitherto distinct deities,
as Israel kter too often identified Yahweh and Baal. In all syn-
cretism there is a seed of monotheism, but most commonly it
has been a seed that bore no fruit. In this syncretism of Yahweh
and El Shaddai, however, there was a seed that did bear fruit,
and this seems to be due to the fact that it was no ordinary
syncretism. Here Yahweh claimed Israel for Himself, and
established His claim by His deliverance of her. El Shaddai
as distinct from Yahweh no more figured in the story than do
the Egyptian gods. Either, then, El Shaddai must be gathered
into Yahweh and identified with Him, or be treated as of no
more significance than the Egyptian gods. This syncretism was
different from the uneasy syncretism of Yahweh and Baal,
which was always apt to break out into conflict in times of crisis,
and which never abolished the undercurrent of feeling that
Yahweh was not really Baal. Here, however, we never find any
conflict between Yahweh and El Shaddai. For this syncretism
was born of the mighty acts of Yahweh, and the initiative was
with Him Who called Moses into His service. As against Him
no gods counted, and He was free to choose for Himself what
people He would. Nor was there any limit to His power. It
could be exercised in Egypt or in Canaan no less than at His
sacred mount, and all the powers of Nature were under His
control. Though there is no reason to ascribe to Moses, or to
Israel for long after his time, theoretical monotheism, there is
here an implicit practical monotheism, or at least the seeds out
of which it should spring. "When the eighth century prophets
moved steadily on towards theoretical, speculative monotheism,
and when Deutero-Isaiah formulated it with pellucid clarity, 1

1 Isa. adv. 22.
24

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

they were but continuing the work which was begun through
Moses, and their work is not to be thought of without relation
to his. 1

If the seeds of monotheism are to be found in the work of
Moses, no less is to be said for the seeds of ethical religion. By
ethical religion is meant more than a religion which makes
ethical demands on men. There are few religions which are not
to some degree ethical in this sense. By ethical religion is meant a
religion whose ethical demands spring no less from the character
of God than from His words. Yahweh asks of men that they
shall reflect His own character, so far as it can be reflected within
the limitations of human life. His resentment of the harsh dealing
of man to man and His compassion for the oppressed were
manifested in His deliverance of Israel, so that when the prophets
denounced harshness and oppression and called for compassion
for the unfortunate they were calling men to reflect the character
which was uniquely expressed in God's deliverance of His people.
Moreover, the whole basis of the Covenant at the sacred mount
was the achieved salvation of God calling for Israel's conse-
cration to Him in gratitude. It therefore had an ethical basis,
since gratitude is an ethical emotion. A religion "which from
God's side is grounded on His grace and from man's side is
grounded on an ethical emotion has an ethical seed no less than
a monotheistic seed at its heart. It is because of this that it is
reasonable to credit Moses with the formulation of the Decalogue.
It is so wholly consonant with the essence of his work.

In what has been said it is implied that Yahweh may have
been worshipped under that name by others before the time of
the Exodus, though not by the Israelites in Egypt. In Exod. vi
we are told explicitly that the patriarchs had not worshipped
God under this name, 2 but we are not told that no others had

1 Cf. T. K. Cheyne, Exp. t 4th series, v, 1892, p. 109: 'My own historical sense emphatic-
ally requires that from, the very beginning there should have been the germ of the
advanced "ethical monotheism" of the prophets.' Also E. Sjoberg, S.E.A., xiv, 1949,
p. 11: 'Yahweh was already from the beginning of a type which made possible a develop-
ment in the direction of prophetic monotheism.'

2 Cf. E-sod. vi. 2 f., and also verse 7: 'I will take you to me for a people, and I will be
to you a God.*

25

THE UNITY OP THE BIBLE

worshipped God under it. In Exod. iii, in the story of the call
of Moses, we are told that God revdaled to Moses that it was
Yahweh Who was commissioning him to go into Egypt. 1 We
are not told that Yahweh had never hitherto been worshipped
tinder this name. On the other hand, we are told in some
passages of Scripture that He had been worshipped under this
name long before. We are told that men began to worship God
under this name in the days of Seth, 2 the son of Adam, and even
before this His name is said to have been on the lips of Eve when
she bore Cain. 3 Biblical support can therefore be claimed for the
view that though the Israelites had not worshipped God in
Egypt by that name, others had so worshipped Him,

That this does not reduce the work of Moses to the mere
transfer of Israel's allegiance to a foreign God has been already
indicated. A wholly new quality was brought into the religion.
For what matters most is not the name of the God, but the
character of the worship. In our worship today we rarely use
the name Yahweh, or even its conventional form Jehovah. 4
Following the Jewish usage, and that of the Greek and Latin
Bibles, we substitute 'The Lord' for it. It is when we look at the
essence of the religion that we recognize that whether others
had worshipped Yahweh before or not, the religion which was
established through Moses had significantly new features. The
incipient monotheism and the ethical quality of the religion
sprang out of the way in which it was mediated to Israel. These
were not transferred from some other religion. The character
that God was seen to have was the character that was revealed
in His mighty acts towards Israel. Moreover, the fundamental
concept of the Divine election of Israel, with all the rich fruits
that this concept was to bear, sprang out of the events of the
Exodus and were no mere borrowing from another faith.

Here, once more, we find a thread that runs all through the
Old Testament at least from the time of Moses, and that gives a

1 Cf. Exod. iii. 13 S. s Gen. iv. 26. 3 Gen. iv. i.

4 It is well known that this word is a hybrid, consisting of the vowels of 'Adonai
and the consonants of the Divine Name, whose pronunciation cannot be certainly
known, but which was probably pronounced Yahweh.

26

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

unity to its thought. The principle of election is carried back,
indeed, far beyond Moses in the Bible. But here it takes a new,
and richly significant, form. God chooses Israel in unmerited
grace, and not became of her worth; 1 and having chosen her,
He claims her for Himself by what He does for her. Through
Moses she is made aware that such grace and such deliverance
lay an obligation upon her which can only be fulfilled in the
Covenant. It is a moral obligation, therefore, which she is free
to accept or to reject, but in whose rejection she would shame
herself. The obligation is to cherish the revelation of God which
has been given to her in her experience and to make it the
heritage of the generations that should follow, and also to give
to God her unstinting loyalty and obedience. Mosaic religion
was therefore a religion of Covenant grounded in the prior
election and deliverance of God. But this means that if succeed-
ing generations could be born into the Covenant, they could not
be wholly in it unless they made it their own by their acceptance
of its obligations. The heritage of the election was offered them
in grace, but the grace renewed its claim, and the claim could
only be accepted by loyalty. Here is the seed of an idea which runs
all through the Old Testament, and whose significance is not
yet exhausted. The prophets were insistent that repudiation of
the obligations of the Covenant was tantamount to the re-
pudiation of Israel's election, and that Israel's claim on God
ceased when her loyalty failed. His grace might still continue,
and continuing would renew its claim, but an Israel that was
disloyal to Him forfeited all claim on Him.

These examples must suffice to illustrate the kind of unity to
be found in the Bible, and particularly in the Old Testament. It is a
unity which lies in great diversity, and though in the present work
we shall be considering the unity, it is important to remember
the diversity. Moreover, it is not a static unity, but the dynamic
unity of a process. The seed of monotheism that lay in the work
of Moses became the clearly formulated monotheism of Deutero-

1 That the divine grace though free is not arbitrary, the present writer has argued in
The Biblical Doctrine of Election.

27

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Isaiah, who never tired of reiterating that beside Yahweh there
is no other God. 1 And when the seed of monotheism developed
it bore the fruit of universalism. If there was no God but Yahweh,
all men should worship Him alone. Just as He had laid His hand
on Israel in Egypt and claimed her for Himself, so He was now
seen to claim all men for Himself. *Look unto me and be ye
saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God and there is no
other/ 2 The seeds of ethical religion that lay in the work of
Moses grew into a strong tree in the work of the great prophets.
It is commonly recognized that the prophets of Israel are without
parallel in any other people or any other faith. But this uniqueness
springs out of that other uniqueness of the work of Moses, whose
work they but continued, and this sprang in turn from the grace
of God, Who chose him and used him to announce and to
interpret His own deeds, but Whose deeds were His own, and
not performed by Moses. Again, the obligations of the Covenant
were more clearly seen as the unity and the character of God
became more manifest. That loyalty to the Covenant demanded
the cherishing of the revelation of God and obedience to His
will was seen at Sinai. But as the character of God became
clearer, the nature of His demands became clearer, and when it
was perceived that He Who had chosen Israel was alone God
and was therefore to be worshipped by all men, it was seen that
the election of Israel carried a missionary corollary. The prophet
who was above all others the prophet of monotheism was also
the prophet of universalism and of the mission of Israel. This
did not mean that he had ceased to think of Israel as the chosen
people. No prophet dwells so constantly on the thought of the
Divine election of Israel, or is more deeply aware of the grace
of God revealed in that election. He dwells upon the thought
of God's choice and on all that God has done and will do for her,
in order that he may bring home to her a deeper insight into the
purpose of that election. The only God Who desired the worship

1 Isa. xliii. 10 , sJiv. 6", 8, 24, adv. 5 , 18, 21

a Isa. adv. 22. fL Levy, Deutero-Isaiah, 1925, p. 195, calls this 'the grandest verse in the
prophet's scroll*.

28

UNITY IN DIVERSITY

of all men, had chosen Israel in order that she might share with
all the revelation that had been made to her. It was not for her
alone, and her unique honour was not only to receive but to
communicate, and in communicating to perfect the service whose
obligation was entailed in the Covenant. 1 the Lord have called
thee in righteousness . . . and will give thee for a covenant of
the people, for a light of the Gentiles/ 1

Diversity and unity must be perceived together in the Bible,
and neither can be sacrificed to the other. 2 A historical sense is
essential for all satisfying study of this Book, but along with
that sense there must go a perception of the continuing thread
that runs through all, and that makes this library also a Book.
There must also be the perception that what gives to this Book
its unity is something of enduring significance, which has meaning
therefore for the contemporary world and for us. 3

1 Isa xlii. 6. This is the familiar rendering of A.V. and R..V. The phrase rendered *a
covenant of the people* has been much discussed. In The Missionary Message of the Old
Testament, p. 51, the -writer rendered 'covenant of humanity*, or universal covenant.
This probably represents the essential meaning, though it is reached in various ways.
R, Levy (Deutero-Isaiah, 1925, p. 147) bases it on the meaning of the cognate Arabic
word 'amm=general, universal; C. C. Torrey (Second Isaiah, 1928, pp. 231, 327) argues
that elsewhere in poetry a singular form stands for the plural, and hence we may render
peoples; G. Quell (Tfi.W.B., i, 1933, p. 34 n.) takes the word rendered people to mean
mankind here, as sometimes elsewhere. L. Dennefeld, however, rejects *hfc view, and
maintains that Israel alone is in mind (La Sainte Bible, ed. by A. Clamer, vii, 1947, p.
158; cf. J. Ziegler, Isaias, 1948, p. 124).

2 Cf. Mary E. Lyman, J.B.R., xiv, 1946, pp. n : "The view of the Bible which
recognizes diversity and change and different levels of value, but which at the same
time appreciates the real unities of religious thought and experience is the view which
has hope for the future of our world.' Also J. Muilenburg, Christianity and the Con-'
temporary Scene, p. 36: "The task of the competent Old Testament student is to do justice
to the elements of diversity and unity within the Old Testament.*

8 Cf. a series of articles on the unity of the Bible in Interpretation, v, 1951: G. E. Wright,
'The Unity of the Bible*, pp. 131 ff.; F. V. Filson, "The Unity of the Old and the New
Testaments', pp. I34ff; R. C. Dentan, 'The Unity of the Old Testament', pp. 153 fiv,
P. E. Davies, 'Unity and Variety in the New Testament', pp. 174 rT.; R. M. Grant, "The
Place of the Old Testament in Early Christianity', pp. 186 f; J. S. Glen, 'Jesus Christ
and the Unity of the Bible*, pp. 259 rF.; N. F. Langford, 'Gospel and Duty', pp. 268 fT.;
F. J. Denbeaux, 'The Biblical Hope', pp. 285 ff.; G. E. Wright, 'The Unity of the Bible',
pp. 304 ff. Cf. also P. Lestringant, Essai sur V Unite* de la Revelation bibliaue, 1942-

II

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

IN the preceding chapter reference has been made to the sharp
antithesis which was formerly found between the Pentateuch and
the prophetic books of the Old Testament, or between prophetic
and priestly religion. In the present chapter attention will be dir-
ected to the measure of unity that can be found here. 1 It must not
be forgotten, however, that by unity identity of message and out-
look is not meant. Diversity of viewpoint is to be found continu-
ally within the Bible, and it is in no way surprising that it should
markprophets and priests. If the measure of unity that marked their
fundamental conception of religion is here examined, that does not
mean that there was no difference of emphasis between them.

It would be easy to multiply quotations from scholars who
have represented prophetic religion as the complete antithesis of
priesdy, and who have argued that the prophets rejected the
whole institution of sacrifice and all the ritual of the Temple. 2
There are familiar passages which can be used impressively to
build up their case. Amos asks: 'Did ye bring unto me sacrifices
and offerings in the wilderness forty years, O house of Israel?' 3
and this rhetorical question is understood to expect the answer

1 On this chapter cf. the writer's earlier discussion in 'The Unity of the Old Testament*,
BJ.RJ,., xxix, 1945-46, pp. 326 fT., and 'The Meaning of Sacrifice in the Old Testa-
ment*, ibid., xxxiii, 1950-51, pp. 74 fF. Cf. also A. C. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old
Israel, 1936; N. W. Porteous, 'Prophet and Priest in Israel', E.T., boo, 1950-51, pp. 4 F.

2 C J. Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Israel, E.Tr. by J. S. Black and A.
Menzies, 1885, p. 423: 'If the Priestly Code makes the cultus the principal thing, that
appears to amount to a systematic decline into the heathenism which the prophets in-
cessantly combated and yet were unable to eradicate'; E. Kautzsch, rn Hastmgs's D.B.,
Extra Vol., 1904, p. 686b: *No one has any right to depreciate the merit which belongs
to the above-named prophets, of having discovered the ideal of true service of God in
the worship of Him in spirit and in truth, without any outward ceremonies and per-
formances'; J. A. Bewer, The Literature of the Old Testament in its Historical Development,
1922, p. 267: 'Religion was a matter of the cult. The earlier prophets had violently pro-
tested against such a conception of religion and rejected the entire cultic apparatus as
contrary to the will of God'; L G. Matthews, The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, 194.7,
p. 128: 'These men had denounced ritual as of no avail, but now, if possible, they went
farther, and made social ethics the essential, even the sole, requirement of Yahweh.'

8 Amos v. 25.

30

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

c No*, and to be a denial that the institution of sacrifice went
back in Israel to the Mosaic period. Jeremiah says: 'I spake not
unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought
them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or
sacrifices*. 1 Here again, it is held, we have a flat denial that
sacrifice really belonged to genuine Israelite religion. In support
of this view some external evidence can now be adduced, for
there is reason to believe that the Israelite sacrificial system had
much in common with the Canaanite. 2 This has led to the view
that it was fundamentally of Canaanite origin, 3 and therefore
taken over by Israel after the entry into the Promised Land.
That the Canaanites had sacrifices known by the same names as
some of the Israelite sacrifices is undeniable, and evidence from
Ras Shamra is now brought forward to reinforce the view to
which reference has been made. No one can deny that Israelite
sacrifice came out of a wider background of ritual practice, 4
but -while it is probable that much of Israelite sacrificial ritual was
modelled on Canaanite, we have no evidence that it was identical
with it in form or meaning, 5 and no evidence that for Israel

1 Jer. vii. 22.

2 C J. Pedersen, Israel: its Life and Culture Ul-IV, 1940, p. 299: "The Israelite sacrifice
does not differ much, from that in common use among the Canaanite peoples, but to a
certain extent it has acquired a special Israelitish character.*

8 Cf. R. Dussaud, Les Origines canantennes du sacrifice Israelite, 1921, and the enlarged
second edition, 1941, where an appendix offers additional support for this view based
on the Ras Shamra texts, "which had been discovered in the interval. Cf. also J. Pedersen,
op. cit. t p. 317: *Our knowledge of the Phoenician-Canaanite cult is now quite sufficient
to warrant the conclusion that the greater part of the Israelitish sacrificial practices had
been learnt from the Canaanites;' J. P. Hyatt, Prophetic Religion, 1947, p. 128: 'Modern
discoveries and research have confirmed the belief that the Hebrew sacrificial system was
largely of Canaanite origin. This has long been suspected on the basis of fragmentary
evidence, and has been further proved by the discovery of cuneiform texts ... at
modern Ras Shamra/ It should be added that Dussaud recognizes that the sacrifice of
Passover was observed by Israel in the nomadic period, before the Settlement in Canaan.
Cf. op. dt. y p. 207.

* C S. H. Hooke, The Origins of Early Semitic Ritual, 1938, pp. 63 fF. In B.JJLJL.,
xxxiii, 1950-51, p. 81 n., the present writer has said: 'I am inclined ... to hold that while
Israelite sacrifice came from a background of ancient Semitic sacrifice, the institution
would naturally be differently developed in different brandies of the Semitic peoples,
and that while Israel doubtless brought some sacrificial ritual with her when she entered
Canaan, she borrowed much from the Canaanites for its development in the post-
Settlement period.*

5 Cf. J. Pedersen, op. cit^ p. 3 17: 'They could independently appropriate the entire
sacrificial cult; but also create new forms and new viewpoints from it.*

B* 31

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

sacrifice began after their entry into the land of Canaan. 1 For
such a view we have no evidence but the texts of Amos and
Jeremiah above quoted, and we must return to examine them
later to see how far it is valid to base this view on them.

There are many other passages in the pre-exilic prophets
which express strong condemnation of sacrifice and of other
forms of religious observance. Amos says: 'I hate, I despise your
feasts, and I will take no delight in your solemn assemblies. Yea,
though ye offer me your burnt offerings and meal offerings, 1
will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of
your fat beasts.' 2 His slightly younger contemporary, Hosea,
says: *I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God
more than burnt offerings', 3 while later in the same century
Isaiah asks, in a familiar passage which need not be quoted in
full: "To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices to me?
saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the
fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or
of lambs, or of he-goats'. 4 Here, however, we begin to have
some misgiving, for Isaiah goes on to include in his condemnation
the observance of new moons and sabbaths, and most surprising
of all prayer. If Isaiah's condemnation of sacrifice is absolute,
and he meant that in no circumstances did God ever want
sacrifice, then his condemnation of prayer is equally absolute,
and he must mean that in no circumstances does God ever want
men to pray. If he did mean this, he stands in disagreement with
Jeremiah, who explored the riches of prayer as few- others did.
But from Jeremiah is culled the saying; 'Your burnt offerings are
not acceptable, nor your sacrifices pleasing unto me,' 5 and this
prophet is ranged with Amos and Hosea by those who hold that
these prophets entirely repudiated sacrifice. To these passages may
be added the great passage which stands in the book of Micah,

1 Cf. A. Lods, Israel from its Beginnings to the Middle of^the Eighth Century, E. Tr. by
S. H. Hooke, 1933, p. 281: "The Israelite system of sacrifice, in its essentials, does not
seem to have been either a Jahwistic innovation . . . nor a borrowing from the Canaan-
ites, as Dussaud has recently maintained, nor a creation of the Jewish priests at the time
of the exile. In the main it comes from the old pre-Mosaic Semitic stock of religious
practices.'

2 Amos v. 21 8 Hos. vi. 6. * Isa. i. n fi*. Jer. vi 20.

32

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

but which is ascribed by many scholars to some other and
unknown prophet in the reign of Manasseh. 1 For our present
purpose it does not matter from whom it came, since it is only
the attitude to sacrifice and the cultus which concerns us. It asks:
e Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before
the high god? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings . . .
Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams ... He hath
shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord
require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk
humbly with thy God?' 2

Here we have an impressive collection of passages which are
held by many to repudiate sacrifice altogether, and to indicate
an attitude irreconcilably opposed to that of priestly religion, as
expressed in the Pentateuch, where sacrifice is enjoined and its
ritual defined, and where it is credited with power to restore
right relations with God. If this view is right, then within the Old
Testament we have two fundamentally different conceptions of the
very nature of religion set forth, each claiming to represent the will
of God, and both canonized in the Scriptures of a single religion.

That such a view is not satisfactory is today felt by an increasing
number of scholars, who do not feel forced to suppose that the
legal and prophetic portions of the Old Testament were so
completely at cross purposes. 3 Before we return to re-examine

1 In the most recent commentary on Micah, A. George (Michee, Sophonie, Nahum,
1952, p. 12), who recognizes some later elements in the book, observes: *One no longer
refuses to attribute to Micah important fragments in v. 8-vii. 7', and further notes (p. 39)
that the triple demand of vi. 8 corresponds to the teaching of the three eighth-century
prophets who preceded Micah. In The Growth of the Old Testament, i9,St5*s pecahho
present writer confessed that he 'is not inclined to pronounce for or ai.iainsMi6, t
authorship*. z Mic. vi, 6 &

8 Cf. J. M. Powis Smith, The Prophets and their Times, 2nd ed., revised by W. A. Irwin,
1941, p. 62: *It may hardly be supposed that Amos would have done away with sacrifice
and ritual entirely if he could. ... It was not ritual as such to which he objected, but
rather the practice of ritual by people who believed that thereby they set in motion
magical forces and insured for themselves well-being and happiness* (cf. ist ed., 1925,
p. 50). Cf. also W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel, 1937, p. 208; H, "Wheeler
Robinson, J.T.S., xhii, 1942, p. 137; J- E. Coleran, Theological Studies, v. 1944, pp.
437 f.; P. S. Minear, Eyes of Faith, 1946, p. 22; J. Paterson, The Goodly Fellowship of the
Prophets, 1948, p. 27. Cf. E. Wiirthwein, Th.L.Z., Ixxii, 1947, cols. 143 fT. On the other
hand, S. Herner still takes the opposite view, and holds that Amos repudiated sacrifice
and the entire cultus. Cf. Suhne und Vergebung in Israel, 1942, pp. 30 f So, too, V. Maag ,
Text, Wortschatx und Begriffswelt des Buches Amos, 1951, pp. 225 f.

33

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

these passages, however, we may turn to some general consider-
ations which may give us pause.

All of these passages stand in the pre-exihc prophets. As
against this the attitude of the post-exilic prophets is admittedly
in favour of sacrifice and all the observances of the cultus. The
post-exilic prophets are therefore often sharply differentiated
from the pre-exilic prophets, and classed with the priests as
exponents of priestly religion. That there was a difference of
message cannot be gainsaid, and it is to be understood, since they
were addressing a different generation with different problems.
Moreover, it cannot be gainsaid that the post-exilic prophets in
general were men of lesser stature than the prophets of the eighth
and seventh centuries. But it has to be noted that all the prophetic
books in their present form, come from the post-exilic period.
This does not mean, of course, that all of the materials which they
contain were post-exilic creations. It means that the books, in
their present form, were compiled in post-exilic days from older
collections of materials. 1 So far as the twelve Minor Prophets are
concerned, we should not think of them as twelve books, but as
a single prophetic collection, -which must have been gathered
together in post-exilic days, since it embodies the oracles of post-
exilic as well as pre-exilic prophets. The compiler of this collec-
tion, therefore, does not seem to have recognized any fundamental
variance as to the very nature of religion between the pre-exilic
and the post-exilic prophets. He may be presumed to have
shared the post-exilic point of view, and he could not have felt
that in preserving the oracles of Amos and Hosea, and of that
prophet whose word is incorporated in the book of Micah, he
was giving currency to a point of view which was anathema to
himself. And since we have the two allegedly incompatible
points of view within this single collection of The Twelve, we

1 That a collection of Jeremiah's oracles was prepared during his lifetime is clear from
Jer. xjucvi. 32, and it is commonly accepted as probable that this was one of the sources
of our present book. It is similarly allowed by all scholars that many of the oracles pre-
served in the other prophetic books are genuine oracles of the prophets to whom they
are ascribed, whether preserved orally or in writing, even though we have no explicit
testimony as in the case of Jeremiah,

34

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

can hardly suppose that Isaiah and Jeremiah must have been
compiled by circles that rejected post-exilic priestly religion and
sought to preserve the words that exposed its hollowness. For
here again we note that there is some similarity of shape about
the compilation of Isaiah First Isaiah and Jeremiah, and to
some extent also about the book of Ezekiel. There is no extract
from the book of Kings in Ezekiel, because there was no relevant
material there. In all these three books the oracles on foreign
nations are gathered together, and in Isaiah and Jeremiah a
historical extract from the book of JKings closes the collection.
Since all three books are post-exilic in their compilation they may
reasonably be credited to common circles. 1 And since Ezekiel is
undoubtedly an exponent of priestly religion we find that once
more the compilers do not seem to have been aware of the
antithesis which modern writers have found. Yet if that antithesis
were fundamental to the message of the pre-exilic prophets, this
would be very odd.

Again, the formation of the Canon of the Old Testament was
a post-exilic process. 2 That some parts of the Pentateuch come
from the pre-exilic period is agreed by almost all, and so far as the
book of Deuteronomy is concerned, its composition is attributed
by most to the seventh century B.C., and its promulgation to the
time of Josiah's reform. 3 This work greatly influenced the com-
pilers of the books that are known in the Hebrew Canon as the
Former Prophets Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings which
could not have reached their present form, therefore, until the
last generation before the Fall of Jerusalem. There are other parts
of the Pentateuch which are attributed by most scholars to the
post-exilic period, and with most support to the fifth century
B.C. Since almost all of those who find the sharp antithesis
between priests and prophets take this view, we shall do them no

1 Cf. the writer's Growth of the Old Testament, p. 87: 'Most probably the four collections
that comprise the Latter Prophets were compiled within a relatively short space of time
by circles that were interested in pre-exilic and post-exilic prophets alike.'

2 Cf. ibid., pp. 169 fF.

3 This is still the most generally accepted view, despite challenges on one side or the
other. C Studies in Old Testament Prophecy (T. H. Robinson Festschrift), 1950, pp.
156 fT. t and C. R. North, in The Old Testament and Modern Study, pp. 48 fi*.

35

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

injustice if we accept it here. This means that die Pentateuch
could not have been completed until the fifth century B.C., at
the earliest, and its acceptance as sacred must be placed even later,
On the other hand it would seem that it must have been accepted
as sacred before the Samaritan schism, since it is accepted by
Samaritans no less than by the Jews. But since the other books
of the Old Testament are not accepted as canonical by the
Samaritans, it would appear that their acceptance as sacred
was of later date. To this we may add that if the prophetic
books were not compiled in their present form until post-
exilic days, their reception into the sacred Canon must be
assigned to the post-exilic age. Not merely the compilers of
the prophetic books were unaware of any antithesis between
the two sorts of prophets, therefore, but the people who
accepted the Prophets alongside the Law in the sacred Canon
could not have felt this antithesis. We ought therefore to make
sure that it is not a modern antithesis which we are reading back
into the texts.

The antithesis between prophet and priest has been much
softened by recent study along quite different lines. Attention has
been called to many passages in the Old Testament which
mention priests and prophets together as cultic officials who stand
side by side. This has led to the wide recognition of what are
called cultic prophets in Israel, who occupied a defined place in
the worship of the shrines. 1 This recognition raises many questions
to which different answers are offered by different scholars. Some
have tended to regard all the prophets as cultic officials, and to
read the Old Testament in terms of what is known of Babylonian
priestly classes. 2 Others have been more cautious, and have
recognized that cultic and non-cultic prophets probably both

1 Cf. S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien III. Kultprophetie und prophetische Psalmen, 1923;
A. R. Johnson, The Cultic Prophet in Ancient Israel, 1944; A. Haldar, Associations of Cult
Prophets among the Ancient Semites, 1945. On these studies cf. O. Eissfeldt, in The Old
Testament and Modern Study, pp. ii9fF., H. H. Rowley, The Servant of the Lord, 1952,
pp. 104 ff., and N. W. Porteous, E.T., bdi, 1950-51, pp. 5 ff. A. C. 'Welch, Prophet and
Priest in Old Israel, pp. 75 n., 130 n., recognized the existence of cultic prophets. Cf.
also Kings and Prophets of Israel, 1952, p. 184.

2 So especially Haldar, op. cit.

36

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

functioned in Israel. 1 Some of the books of the prophetic canon
have been treated as partly, or even wholly, liturgies prepared by
cultic prophets for use on particular occasions. 2 It is clear that we
must beware of any easy division between cultic prophets and
true prophets, that would identify the cultic prophets with the
opponents of the true prophets, and define the true prophets as
men who opposed the whole institution of the cultus. Had any
such simple line of division existed, it would have been easy for
anyone to apply the test and to know who was a false prophet.
Yet we find that no simple or satisfying tests could be laid down,
and when the book of Deuteronomy endeavours to lay down any
tests they are on quite different lines. 3 It is probable that the very-
strength of the denunciation of the false prophets by the canonical
prophets is due to the fact that ordinary people had no means of
detecting their deceptions. It was in the realm of the spirit, rather
than in that of function, that the difference lay. 4 Both claimed to
be prophets in the same sense, and the difference between them
was in the measure of their reflection of the message of God in
their word. To say this is to say that sharp lines of division cannot
be drawn amongst the prophets. Some functioned in the shrines,
but some quite certainly did not, and the same prophet could
sometimes function in a shrine and sometimes not. All prophets
were probably cultic persons, though not all seem to have been
attached to particular shrines; but if some prophets were regarded
as cultic officials and sharp lines could not be drawn within the
prophetic groups, we must be cautious of converting any of the
prophetic groups into such root and branch opponents of the

1 C R. B. Y. Scott, The Relevance of the Prophets, p. 43: 'With the great prophets
such a connection with the cultus was exceptional; but that bodies of "official prophets"
continued down to the seventh century to be associated with the temple priesthood is
clear from Jer. xxvi. 8, n, ioV

2 Cf. P. Humbert, 'Essai d'analyse de Nahoum i. 2-ii. 3', Z.A.W., xliv, 1926, pp.
266 f, *Le Probleme du Hvre de Nahoum*, R.H.P.R., xii, 1932, pp. i fF., Problemes
du livre d'Habacuc, 1944; A. Haldar, Studies in the Book ofNahum, 1947. Cf. too L Engnell,
'Joels bok*, S.B.U., i, 1948, cols. 1075 fl, and A. S. Kapelrud,/0<?Z Studies, 1948. Kapelrud
holds that the book of Joel is in part composed in the style of a liturgy. So long ago as
1907 P. Haupt maintained that the first two chapters of Nahum were a liturgy, though
he placed the composition as late as the second century B.C. and held that they were
composed to celebrate the -victory over Nicanor in 161 B.C. Cf. J.BX., xxvi, 1907. PP- 1 ff-

8 Deut. xiii. i rF., xviii. 20 ff. * C The Servant of the Lord, pp. 127

37

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

cultus that it would be hard to understand why they should bear
a common name with that borne by officials of the cultus.

One further general consideration may also be noted. It has
been said that the school that finds the antithesis has found in the
book of Deuteronomy Josiah's Law-book, and has usually
ascribed its composition to the seventh century B.C. It has
found this book to rest on the teachings of the eighth century
prophets, and all its noble exhortations to humanity and compas-
sion have been traced to this source. Yet it is certain that the
compilers of Deuteronomy did not repudiate the institution of
sacrifice and regard the cultus as something inherently evil. No
more than the post-exilic compilers of the prophetic books or the
shapers of the Canon do they appear to have realized that the
eighth century prophets were inflexibly opposed to sacrifice and
the cultus. It is hard to think that they, who stood so near at least
to Isaiah in time, were completely confused in their understanding
of his message and that of his predecessors.

With so many considerations to suggest that neither in pre-
exilic nor in post-exilic days was any such root and branch
antagonism between the exponents of prophetic and priestly
religion felt as modern writers have alleged, we may return to
the passages already quoted, to see if they will bear another
interpretation more consistent with probability. First we may
note one other general consideration, arising from the study of
these passages themselves. When Amos denounces sacrifice, he
continues: 'But let judgement roll down as waters, and righteous-
ness as a mighty stream'. 1 Isaiah ends his great passage by saying:
'Your hands are full of blood*. 2 Similarly Jeremiah prefaces his
declaration that the sacrifices are not acceptable by saying that
the people had not hearkened to the words of the Lord and had
rejected His law. 3 If these prophets really meant that sacrifice was
wrong in itself and under all circumstances, it was very inept of
them to bring into direct connection with their denunciation
what was really irrelevant to it. If sacrifice and sacred seasons and
prayer were just as hateful to God whether men's hands were full

1 Amos v. 24. 2 Isa. i. 15. 3 Jer. vi. 19.

38

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

of blood or -whether they were not, and if God hated to see men
in the Temple sharing the forms of worship whether they came
to Him with sincerely obedient hearts or not, it would surely
have been wiser for these prophets to have said so unmistakably,
and not to have befogged the issue by so persistently bringing
in these irrelevances.

The general message of all these passages is 'not sacrifice, but
obedience' and by obedience the prophets meant the reflection
of the character of God in life and the finding of its source in holy
fellowship with Him. Here we may observe that it is characteristic
of Hebrew idiom to say 'not this but that', when the meaning is
'that is more important than this'. This characteristic has often
been observed, 1 and we are not ordinarily troubled by it. When
our Lord said that no one could be His disciple unless he hated
his parents and all who were bound to him by natural ties, 2 He
meant that loyalty to Him must take precedence over loyalty
to one's kindred. 3 We do not for one moment suppose that He
Who enjoined the love of enemies enjoined the hatred of friends.
Though the terms used were ostensibly absolute, we recognize
that the meaning was comparative. 4 It is therefore possible that
the prophets were really saying that obedience was more impor-
tant than sacrifice, and that for lack of obedience sacrifice was
invalidated. 6 So far as Hosea is concerned, we find that the

1 Cf. C. J. Cadoux, E.T., lii, 1940-41, pp. 378 ; C. Lattey, J.T.5., xlii, 1941, pp. 158 ff.

2 Lk. xiv. 2,6. 3 The saying is interpreted in this sense in Matt. x. 37.

4 C. J. Cadoux, E.T., Iviii, 1946-47, pp. 44 , claims that so far as Mic. vi. 6-8 is
concerned, sacrifice is definitely excluded, because it is not specified in what he maintains
to be the exhaustive demands of God. If this rigid literalism is followed, then we must
conclude that every form of corporate worship is unacceptable to God, because it is not
here specified. A similar literalistic reading of Jn. vi. 27 would forbid the Christian to
work for his living, since work is not merely excluded by implication, but specifically
prohibited. 'Work not for the meat which pensheth, but for the meat which abideth
unto eternal life.' It is always wrong to approach the Bible in the spirit of a lawyer arguing
the meaning of an Act of Parliament.

6 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, Redemption and Revelation, 1942, p. 250: "The prophets*
criticism of contemporary sacrifices was not necessarily intended to do away with them
altogether, but was more probably intended to check the abuse of them, by which they
became the substitutes, instead of the accompaniments, expressions and encouragements,
of true piety and nght conduct/ Similarly W. P. Paterson, in Hastings's D.B , iv, 1902,
P- 33 5b: "Those who regard the prophets as abolitionists make a mistake which is common
in studying polemics viz. of misconceiving an attack on abuses as an attack on the
institution which they have infected."

39

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

second part of his statement is translated in comparative terms by
translators ancient and modern, who had no axe to grind, 1 but
simply sought to give a natural rendering: 1 desire mercy, and
not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt
offerings/ 2 The two halves of the verse are parallel, and it is
improbable that in the first half sacrifice is absolutely condemned
arid in the second part comparatively. Both halves express the
same thought that sacrifice is not the most important of the
demands of God. 3 This thought we find elsewhere in the Bible
in such a passage as: 'Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and
to hearken than the fat of rams.* 4

This still leaves the rhetorical question of Amos and the state-
ment of Jeremiah, with which we began, unexplained. So far as
Jeremiah is concerned, it is hard to think that his teaching as a
whole favours the view that he opposed the entire institution of
sacrifice. It is true that he could contemplate, and even announce,
the destruction of the Temple; 5 but that was not because the
Temple was evil in itself, but only because men had polluted it.
What had been intended for the house of God had become a
den of thieves, 6 to which men resorted for safety in the vain hope
that the God Whose way they despised would be bound to give
them protection here. Yet Jeremiah could say that if only men
would return to God in sincerity and do His will, the destruction
of the Temple might be avoided. 7 Clearly he was not against the
Temple as such, but found that men who came to it invalidated
their worship by the spirit in which they came.

Nor is it probable that Jeremiah denied, in the verse that has

1 E. C. Maclaurin, The Origin of the Hebrew Sacrificial System, 1948, p. 29, renders:
*and the knowledge of God without burnt-offerings'. So also S. Herner, Suhne und
Vergebung in Israel^ 1943, p. 36. That the preposition might have this meaning is indubit-
able, but that it is not a natural rendering is dear from the fact that the Septuagint,
Vulgate, Peshitta, and the standard versions in modern languages render by the compara-
tive. The rendering without has been adopted only by the school of writers that was ante-
cedently persuaded that the prophets rejected all sacrifice. A rendering which rests on a
theory can offer no support to it. The alternative rendering is perfectly natural and does
not rest on any theory about the prophets.

*Hos.vi. 8.

3 Cf. A. C. Welch, Kings and Prophets of Israel, 1952. p. 183: 'What Hosea demanded
was a closer union between the sacrifice and repentance.*

4 i Sam. xv. 22. fi Jer. vii. 14, xxvi. 6. 6 Jer. vii. n. 7 Jer. vii. 3.

40

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

been quoted, that sacrifices had any part in the religion of the
Mosaic period. The oldest Pentateuchal sources, that long ante-
dated the days of Jeremiah, had records of sacrifices in the days of
Moses, and long before in the patriarchal period. Moreover, the
story of the Exodus was inextricably associated with the Passover,
and it is hard to believe that Jeremiah was unwilling to adroit
that the Passover lambs were slain. It is true that the Passover was
unlike other sacrifices, but it was certainly regarded as a sacrifice.
Sacrifices were, indeed, of many kinds. 1 Again, it is clear that
Jeremiah held Samuel in high esteem, as a holy man whose
prayers might be particularly effective, though insufficient to
avert the disaster that was coming upon Judah. 2 There can be no
doubt that Samuel offered sacrifices, and Jeremiah could scarcely
be ignorant of the fact. Yet in spite of this, he held him in honour.
It would therefore seem that Jeremiah's condemnation of sacrifice
was not so absolute. We may now observe that here again, in this
passage, we have a statement of the type 'not this but that', where
the intention is to stress the importance of that as against this. 1
spake not unto your fathers . . . concerning burnt offerings or
sacrifices: but this thing I commanded them, saying, Hearken
unto my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people. 3
It was this that was represented as the important thing, to which
sacrifice was secondary. In this there is nothing antithetical to
what is stated in the Pentateuch. On the contrary, the words of
Jeremiah are but an echo of what we read there. For there God
is represented as saying to Moses: 'If ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my covenant, then shall ye be a peculiar treasure
unto me from among all peoples . . , and ye shall be unto
me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation.' 4 In this passage,
which is more fundamental to the Covenant of Sinai than the
subsequent sacrificial legislation, there is no mention of sacrifice.
For obedience was the first demand of God in the Law no less
than in the Prophets.

1 Cf. H, H. Rowley, B.J.R.L., xxxiii, 1950, pp. 83 flf. Also, for a fuller discussion,
W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel, 1937, pp. 75 ff-

2 Ter. xv. i. s Jer. vii. 22 * Exod. xix. 5.

41

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

We are left with the rhetorical question of Amos, which is
held to imply a denial that any sacrifices were offered in the
wilderness period. Yet if it does imply such a denial, it equally
implies that everybody knew that no sacrifices were offered in
that period, since the answer was left to the people to supply. 1 It
would surely be surprising to suggest that this was well known,
when all our surviving traditions from days long antedating the
time of Amos tell of such sacrifices. If Amos wished to deny the
truth of those traditions, he might have been expected to do so
direcdy, and not by such a rhetorical question as he posed. It is
now more than half a century since a different understanding of
the text of Amos was proposed, 2 and one which seems to the
present writer to be more probable, especially in view of all that
has been here said. It was noted that the words 'sacrifices and
offerings' stand in the emphatic position at the beginning of the
sentence in Hebrew, and that the verb used for 'bring' is unusual
in connection with sacrifices. The meaning was therefore held to
be: * Was it only flesh-sacrifices and meal-offerings that ye brought
me in the wilderness?' where the expected answer would be the
confession 'We brought more than this; we brought true worship
of heart and righteousness'. 3

Viewing all these passages together, the attitude of the pre-
exilic prophets would appear to have been that sacrifice as an
external act unrelated to die spirit had no value, and was positively

1 V. Maag, Text, Wortsehate und Begriffswelt des Baches Amos, 1951, pp. 221 , thinks
Amos relies on a historical source which was in disagreement with J and E. This is most
improbable. Maag agrees that such a source was without foundation in fact, and since
both J and E are generally agreed to be older than the time of Amos, it is unlikely that
the prophet could have referred allusively to a different tradition as though it were
unchallengeable.

2 Cf. D. B. Macdonald, *Old Testament Notes. 2. Amos v. 25', J.B.L., xvni, 1899,
pp. 214

s Oesterley, op. dt., p. 195, proposes a less likely view. He holds that the meaning of the
passage is *Did not your forefathers offer me sacrifices which were acceptable because
they were offered in faithfulness and sincerity?* and that the answer expected was 'Yes',
where the implied rebuke is then *Why, then, do you offer sacrifices which, on account
of your sins and on account of your false ideas about your God Yahweh, are worthless
and unacceptable?' Similarly H. Junker, Theologte und Glaube, 1935, pp. 686 ff., holds
that the expected answer was 'Yes*. E. Wiirthwein, Th.L.Z., boi, 1947, col. 150, suggests
that the verse is a gloss which entered the text.

42

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

dishonouring to God. 1 It was a vain effort to deceive Him,
appearing to express a meaning by the act but not really charging
the act with the meaning. It was by obedience that the real
attitude of the heart was expressed, and if there had been some
lapse for which pardon was sought by the sacrifice, then there
must be some true repentance in the heart, or the sin would be
clung to in the heart and God be mocked by the cry for pardon.
The prophets we have been considering could see no sign of such
repentance or obedience. Men whose lives were an offence to
God were inflexibly determined to repeat on the morrow the
things that were seen by the prophets to be an offence to Him.
No cry for pardon was in the heart, however much it might be
on the lips; no plea for fellowship could have reality, while the
heart insisted on being far from God. The pre-exilic prophets
denounced sacrifices which were hollow and ineffective; but there
is no reason to suppose that they held that no other sacrifices
could be offered by men whose hearts were right with God.
Indeed it is implied by the whole purport of the declaration
'Your worship is inacceptable; your hands are full of blood'
that if the hands were not full of blood the worship would be
acceptable. It was not the act alone that mattered, but the act as
charged with the spirit of the worshipper. It was in the Temple
that Isaiah had his call, 2 and in the moment of that experience
he felt his lips touched with a live coal from the altar and his
whole being was purified by its touch. It cannot be that he thought
it wrong to tread the Temple courts, or supposed the altar to be
a thing evil in itself.

When now we turn to the Law, we find it just as hard to
sustain the common antithesis from this side. The Law nowhere

1 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, J.T.S., xbii, 1942, p. 137: 'Our parallelism suggests that
for the prophets everything depended on the spirit in which an act was performed. . . .
Similarly, we may say that they condemned the opus operation of sacrifice, so long as it
was not lifted up into the spirit of true devotion to Yahweh, and true obedience to His
moral requirements.' I. Epstein says the prophets were all concerned with voluntary
sacrifices in these passages, and that it was only such sacrifices that were fraught with
spiritual peril. Cf. 'Introduction to Seder odashim% p. xxvi, in H. Freedman, Zebahim,
1948. On the attitude of Amos to the cultus cf. A. Ndher, Amos, 1950, pp. 87 ff.

2 Isa. vi i.

43

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

teaches that so long as men offer the right sacrifices they can live
how they please. The Decalogue, which stands in the Law, and
which may reasonably be ascribed to Moses, is the earliest expres-
sion of ethical religion. The Covenant, whose establishment is
recorded in the Law, called first and foremost for obedience.
The principles of humanity so dear to the prophets are expressed
with power in Deuteronomy, and there we read the great word
which has been cherished by Jews in all ages, and which was
declared by our Lord to be the first law of life for all men:
*Thou shalt love the Lord thy God'. 1 In the Code of Holiness
we find that other word -which is lifted to honour in the
Gospel: 'Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself/ 2 There is
nothing in any of this of which the greatest of the prophets
might have been ashamed, and the post-exilic Judaism that
attached so great a value to the Law need not be dismissed
as unspiritual.

The Law prescribed sacrifices, but it prescribed more than
sacrifices. Where sacrifice for sin was offered and we should
beware of supposing that all sacrifices were offered for sin
confession of sin was demanded, and restitution in so far as
restitution could be made. 'And it shall be, when he shall be
guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that "wherein
he hath sinned; and he shall bring his forfeit unto the Lord for
his sin which he hath sinned . . . and the priest shall make
atonement for him as concerning his sin.' 3 Before the sacrifice
could be effective, it must be the organ of his approach to God.
Moreover, if he had sinned against his fellow-man, he was
required to make amends to him against whom he had sinned,
before he could get right with God. 'When a man or woman
shall commit any sin that men commit . . . then shall they
confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make
restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part
thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been
guilty/ 4 It was not alone the prophets who were concerned with

1 Deut vL 4 f. 2 Lev, xix. 18.

3 Lev. v. 5 * Num. v. 6f.

44

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

the relation of man to man, and found here something that
vitally affected the relation of man to God.

Similarly, when sacrifice was made for the sins of the com-
munity on the great Day of Atonement, an essential element in
the ritual was the confession of the sin of the community by the
High Priest as its representative. 1 There is no reason to suppose
that this was intended to be a hollow formality. If the priest did
not truly represent the spirit of the community in his confession,
he could not truly represent it in his sacrifice, and the one was as
meaningless as the other. 2

Again, there is an important passage in the Law which says:
'The soul that doeth aught with a high hand . . . the same
blasphemeth the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from among
his people/ 3 It is clear that sinning with a high hand meant
something more than consciously sinning, since there is provision
for the cleansing of sins which were certainly conscious, and it
is probable that this meant deliberately sinning, sinning as the
expression of the settled purpose of the heart, as distinct from
lapsing into sin. 4 Such a sinner could not sincerely repent, and
for him no sacrifice was valid. It was the sacrifices of such persons
that the prophets declared useless, and in this they were at one
with the Law.

It is here of interest to observe that in the book of Proverbs we
find the same point of view. That book is commonly spoken of as
representing a spirit of shrewd worldly-wisdom, and it is certain
that we do not find here the religious profundity of either Law
or Prophets. Nevertheless, here we find that a fundamentally
religious outlook prevails. The fear of God is the beginning of
wisdom, 5 and it is recognized that in the will of God is the only
true well-being of man. And here we find the same attitude
which we have seen to characterize both Law and Prophets.

1 Lev. xvi. 21.

* C T. *W. Manson, J.T.S.,, xlvi 1945, p. 7- *As Elbogen points out, the immense
numbers of Jews who could not be present at the Temple service kept the fast, and made
their confession in their synagogues. The confession became universal and individual in
Israel.' 3 Num. xv. 30.

4 C BJJL.L., xxxiii, 1950-51, p. 97- fi Prov - * 7-

45

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

'The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more
when he bringeth it with a wicked mind/ x Or again: 'To do
justice and judgement is more acceptable to the Lord than
sacrifice/ 2 Surely there is a unity of view dominant in the Bible
on this matter, even though there is a difference of emphasis and
of the strength of passion put into the words. Nowhere is sacrifice
presented save as secondary to obedience and to rightness of
spirit. And later Judaism, with all its emphasis on the Law,
always understood the Law in this sense, and rated but lightly
the offering without the spirit that made it the organ of the
offerer's approach to God. 3

It has been already said that it is not our purpose to argue that
there is no difference between the Law and the Prophets. Indeed,
it has been insisted that the unity to be found in the Bible is a
unity in diversity, and that differences must be recognized as well
as an underlying unity. It is therefore unnecessary to minimize
the difference between the Law and the Prophets in the interests
of the unity which is maintained. For the Law is much concerned
with involuntary acts and ritual uncleanness, where no ethical
considerations were involved. In part these are a legacy from

1 Prov. xxi. 27. Cf. xv. 8. The translation given in the text above follows A.V. and
R.V. Some prefer R.V. marg.: 'When he bringeth it to atone for wickedness.'

2 Prov. xxL 3. Cf. EccL v. I (Heb. iv. 17): 'To draw nigh to hear is better than to give
the sacrifice of fools.*

3 Cf. Ecdus. xxxiv. 18 f. (xxxi. 21 ff.): 'The sacrifice of an unrighteous man is a
mockery, and the oblations of the wicked axe not acceptable. The Most High hath no
pleasure in the offerings of the godless; nor is pacified for sins by the multitude of sacri-
fices* (rendering based in part on the Syriac text and in part following the rendering of
Box and Oesterley, in Charles's Apocrypha and Pseudeptgrapha of the Old Testament, i,
I9I3 p- 4-35J c BJJZ..L., xxxui, p. 102). Cf. also Mishnah, Yoma, vid. 9: *If a man say,
I will sin again and repent, he will be given no chance to repent. If he say, I will sin and
the Day of Atonement will clear me, the Day of Atonement will effect no clearance';
Tosephta, Yoma v. 9 (ed, Zuckermandel, 1937, p. 190): Sin ofiering and guilt offering
and death and the Day of Atonement all put together do not effect atonement without
repentance'; T.B. Berachoth 233 (c A. Cohen, The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate B'rakot,
1921, p. 150): 'Be not like fools who sin and make an offering without repenting'. To
suggest that Judaism was concerned only with the act and not with the spirit is quite
unfair. It did not condone deliberate sin, or think of sacrifice as a magical means of evad-
ing its consequences. In the Midrash, Lev. Rabba ii. 12 (cf. Midrash Rabbah 9 ed. by H.
Freedman and M. Simon, iv, 1939, pp. 32 f.), we read: 'This is so that a man shall not
say within himself, I -will go and do things which are ugly and unseemly, and I will
bring an ox, on which there is much flesh, and offer it on the altar, and lo ! I shall be in
favour with Him, and He will receive me as a penitent*

46

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

primitive ideas, and in part they were intended to foster the
sense of the exceeding greatness of God, Whose lightest word
must be law to man, and the sense of the heinousness of moral
evil, since even ritual uncleanness must be taken so seriously. 1
We find none of this in the prophets, and we see its perils when
we come to the New Testament and observe the concern for
the trivial which is there condemned. 2 Nor can we read some of
the tractates of the Mishnah without realizing that the attitude
condemned in the Gospels was well represented. There was a
deep concern for the technical and the trivial which is poles
asunder from anything that stands in the Prophets. That this was
not the only side of Judaism, and especially of Pharisaism, must
be freely recognized. For Christianity received a rich heritage
from Judaism, without robbing Judaism of it; it continued to be
the heritage of Judaism and to mark with its high spirit many of
Judaism's leaders.

That Judaism is not to be condemned as hard and unspiritual,
and set over against the prophets in the way that has been here
repudiated, is further to be seen from the fact that the Psalter
had its place in the worship of post-exilic Judaism. Many of the
Psalms were probably of pre-exilic composition, but the compil-
ation of the Psalter was quite certainly achieved in post-exilic days.
There was a time -when the composition of most of the psalms
was ascribed to the late post-exilic period, but that mood has
passed in the scholarly circles of today. Indeed, the present danger
is rather on the other side, in the too ready assumption that
almost all the psalms were early. It is wiser not to attempt the
impossible task of dating the individual psalms, but to recognize
that we have both early and late elements in the Psalter. We
should be particularly cautious in the ascription of psalms to the
Maccabaean period, to which large numbers of them were once

1 Cf. the saying of Rabbi Judah the Prince: 'Be heedful of a light precept as of a
weighty one* (Pirqe Aboth ii. i).

2 Cf. J. Klausner's observation on the Pharisees: "The casuistry and immense theoretical
care devoted to every one of the slightest religious ordinances left them open to the
misconception that the ceremonial laws were the main principle and the ethical laws
only secondary" (Jesus of Nazareth, E. Tr. by H. Danby, and ed., p. 216).

47

THE UNITY OP THE BIBLE

ascribed. Nevertheless, we may reasonably find in the post-exilic
compilation of the collection of the psalms, and in the employ-
ment of them in worship, 1 a signal evidence of interest in spiritual
worship in that age. Post-exilic Judaism expressed its spirit as much
here, and in the collection and veneration of the Prophets, as it did
in its veneration of the Law, By all must it be judged, and not by
one alone, and that one expression of its spirit seen in distorted
perspective, without emphasis on its more spiritual elements. 2

It is frequently observed that in the Psalter there are passages
comparable with those passages in the Prophets at which we have
looked, where sacrifice is depreciated. Once more we observe
that they stand alongside other passages where sacrifice is clearly
approved of, and it would seem that the collectors of the psalms
were not aware of any flat contradiction. The passage most
commonly appealed to is: 'Thou delightest not in sacrifice; else
would I give it: Thou hast no delight in burnt offering. The
sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: A broken and a contrite
heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.' 3 Immediately after this we
find that sacrifices are referred to with approval in this same
psalm. 4 As it is probable that the last two verses of this psalm are
a later addition, they cannot be appealed to for the view of the
author of our verses. 5 It is to be noted, however, that the heading

1 It Is commonly held today that many of the psalms accompanied ntual acts, both
completing the ritual and interpreting its significance. Cf. A. J. Wensinck, Semiettsche
Studien uit de nalatenschap van A. J. Wensinck, 194.1, p. 57: *My thesis is that, for the
greater part, the Psalms are spoken rhythmic illustrations of the acts of worship; just as
the musical part of the Catholic Mass is an illustration and a rhythmization of the ritual
acts* (first published in 1919). Such a view of the cultic use of the Psalter has been main-
tained especially by S. Mowinckel, Psalmenstudien, 1921-24. Cf. also A. C. Welch,
Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, pp. 131 ff.

2 Cf. N. W. Porteous, Interpretation, in, 1949, pp. 404 : 'It must never be forgotten
that the clue to the meaning of what Israel did in her religious practice is to be found
reflected in the Psalter It is quite unlikely that these ancient Hebrew hymns which have
inspired so much that is best in Christian worship should have originally, many of them,
been composed to accompany a ritual which did not represent a genuine synthesis of the
religious and the ethical. To suppose anything else is to suppose that the Psalms were
fundamentally irrelevant in the ritual setting to which they originally belonged. In other
words, the evidence of the Psalter must be allowed to qualify the evidence of the prophets. 7

8 Psa. E. 16 (Heb. 18 ). * Psa. H. 19 (Heb. 21).

5 Some modern writers have defended the originality of these verses. So C. A. Briggs,
Tlie Book of Psalms, ii, 1909, p. 10; G. Widengren, The Accadian and Hebrew Psalms of
Lamentation as Religious Documents, 1937, pp. 31 f. The alternative view, that they are
an addition, seems more probable, however; since they seem to be quite unrelated to the

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

of the psalm associates it with David at the time of his adultery
with Bathsheba and the consequent treatment of Uriah, that
amounted to murder. Little reliance can be put on the headings
of the psalms, * but it is possible that the author wrote it with
David in mind, or was himself guilty of some similarly heinous
sin, or composed the psalm for people who were guilty of grave
sins and yet were penitent. While the heading has litde authority
as evidence of authorship, it has much evidence on the under-
standing of the psalm at the time when it was added. We may
next observe that in David's situation, at the time indicated in
the heading, no sacrifice was relevant, for no sacrifice was
prescribed in the Law for adultery or murder. 2 There were many
sins too heinous to be cleared by any sacrifice, for with all its
insistence on sacrifice, the Law is far from suggesting that any
ritual act can be relevant where grave sin is concerned. When the
prophets declared that sacrifice was unavailing because men's
hands were full of blood, they were not saying something which
is contradicted in the Law, but were speaking in full harmony
with the Law, which declared that for sins of blood death alone
was adequate. They were implicitly defining sins of blood to
include more than direct physical violence, but they were adding
nothing new as to the heinousness of sins of blood. We sometimes
find that there is pardon even for such grave sins, when the sinner

individual penitence which is the theme of the rest of the psalm. John Paterson, The
Praises of Israel, 1950, p. 107, thinks it was perhaps due to die addition of these verses
that the psalm, was preserved at all. S. Daiches, in Essays Presented to J. H. Hertz, 1944,
pp. 105 fF., maintained that the last two verses had no reference to animal sacrifice, but
used the terms of animal sacrifice as figures for 'sacrifices of righteousness*, which he
interpreted to mean righteous living. This is highly improbable. C. Ryder Smith, Tlie
Biblical Doctrine of Salvation, 1941, p. 85, asks: '"Why did some one, after having read the
Psalm, add them, and why did others accept the addition? Not, surely, just because he
and they wanted to push ritual in somehow, but because they felt that, when the ex-
perience so poignantly described in the psalm was theirs, they could go on to use the
sacrifices of the Temple sacramentally. They were men who, having cried out for "a
dean heart" and "a right spirit", knew that the right use of ritual would help them to
find it.'

1 The Davidic authorship is maintained by B. D. Eerdmans, The Hebrew Book of
Psalms (O.T.S., iv), 1947, PP- 274 ff.

2 Cf. H. Herkenne, Das Bttch for Psalmen (in H.S.A. Tes., ed. by R Feldmann and
H. Herkenne, V, 2), 1936, p. 191, and E. Pannier and H. Renard, Les Psaumes (in La
Samte Bible, ed. by A. Clamer, v), 1950, p. 303.

49

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

in true penitence humbles himself before God; but it is always a
pardon granted by God in His grace to the penitent, and not
achieved for him by any ritual act. Hence in such a situation as
David's who did repent and who was pardoned, 1 but for whose
sins the Law prescribed no remedy, the words of the psalm are
in full accord with the Law, and whoever read the psalm in the
light of its heading had no need to abandon the Law when he
read these words. Even without the heading, it is certain that the
psalm was written by one who was deeply conscious of some
great sin, or written for the use of such, 2 and equally certain that
for the greatest sins the Law prescribed no ritual remedy. It is
quite unwarranted to lift these words out of their context, and
then to infer that the writer held that sacrifice was in itself wholly
alien to the will of God. 3

The Law prescribed no sacrifices for the most serious of sins.
Nevertheless, within its limited range, sacrifice was certainly

1 Cf. 2, Sam xii. 13.

2 Cf. BJR.L., xxix, 1945-46, pp. 352f., where the writer has observed: 'If a sin-
ofFering were being offered, I can think of nothing more appropriate or more efFectrve
than Psalm H to make the worshipper realize that his offering was of less significance
than the spirit in which he brought it, or to call forth from him that spirit of penitence
which could make the cry of his offering the genuine cry of his heart, that his offering
might be at once the organ of his approach to God, and of God's approach in grace to

8 There are other passages in the Psalter which have been held to repudiate sacrifice
altogether. Psa. box. 30 f. (Heb. 31 f.) can scarcely be pressed to mean more than that
God is better pleased with the souTs attitude than with any act of sacrifice. But this, as
we have seen, is the attitude expressed again and again in the Old Testament, and is but
a variation of the thought *To obey is better than sacrifice*. Psa. xl. 6 ff. (Heb. 7 ff.)
again, offers an example of the expression in apparently absolute terms of a relative mean-
ing, such as has been noticed above. It declares, in effect, that God does not delight in
sacrifice, but in humble submission to His will, and this, in accordance with that frequent
use of the 'relative negative* in Hebrew, can be understood to mean that God does not
delight in sacrifice so much as in obedience. Psa. 1. 9 ff , once more, seems at first sight to
be an uncompromising declaration that God is in no need of sacrifice and takes no delight
in it. Yet in the same psalm we read: 'Gather my saints together unto me: those that have
made a covenant with me by sacrifice* (verse 5), where sacrifice is approved when
offered by men in the right spirit. Further, verses 14 and 25 of this psalm imply that
sacrifice is not absolutely repudiated. On these passages cf. C. Lattey, J.T.S., xhi, 1941,
pp. 161 ff. G. R. Berry, The Book of Psalms, 1934, p. 87, observes of Psa. xL: 'It is probably
not an entire repudiation of sacrifice, but it assigns to it a subordinate position*, while
of Psa. 1. he says: 'The psalm is a protest against some features of the use of sacrifices in
die time of the writer. It is not written in entire opposition to them, but ... it dis-
approves the excessive reliance on them which was common among the mass of the
people.*

50

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

thought of as potent when offered rightly. 1 The pre-exilic
prophets, who were preoccupied with men who did not offer
rightly, say little of dais; the Law, which emphasizes both the
right technique and the right spirit, was much concerned with it.
When sacrifice was the organ of the spirit, it was believed to be
charged with power for its specific purpose. The offerer had to
lay his hand on the head of the slaughtered animal, thus to
identify himself in symbol with the animal, so that its death
symbolized his death to the past, or to whatever stood between
him and God, and his approach to God in thanksgiving or in
plea. 2 A symbol that corresponds to no reality is completely
meaningless. That is Deutero-Isaiah's condemnation of idols.
They were symbols of unreality, since the only God would have
none of them. So here, the offerer who laid his hand on the head
of the animal while his heart was far from penitence and from
the humble approach to God was performing a meaningless act,
that was a symbol of nothing. In a profound sense he must come
to God with his sacrifice if it were to have meaning. But when
he did so come, it was believed by the framers of the Law that his
sacrifice could be the organ of God's approach to him in cleansing
and in fellowship. Everywhere it was seen that obedience and the
submission of the heart to God are primary, and more important
than the external act, so that the sacrifice by itself could do nothing
for him. For in the thought of the Old Testament, while sacrifice
was the organ of blessing, it was not its source. God, and God
alone, was its source. If men made their sacrifices the organ of
their approach to Him, He could make them also the organ of
His approach to them in blessing. 3 Where sacrifices were pre-

1 Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, J.T.S., xliii, 1942, p 131: 'That the personal act of
sacrifice was generally regarded as doing something, Le. as "efficacious", hardly needs
demonstration. This is implied, on the one hand, in the detailed attention given to sacrifice
in the Old Testament. This would be meaningless unless sacrifice were meaningful, to a
degree far beyond a figurative and merely declarative symbolism.*

2 Lev. i. 4, iii. 2, 8, 13, etc. Cf. H. "Wheeler Robinson, loc* cit., p. 130: *The natural
meaning of the laying of hands on the sacrifice is the closer identification of the offerer
with his offering.'

S H. Wheeler Robinson described the sacrifices as 'actualized approaches to God'
(Redemption and Revelation, p. 251). It is this which distinguishes them from the magic
with which many in Israel confused them. 'Magic constrains the unseen; religion means

51

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

scribed, it was thought to be important that they should be
offered, since no obedience to God could be genuine if it ignored
His commands. This is the complaint of the post-exilic prophets.
No longer did they see the splendid sacrifices offered with every
ritual precision by people who proudly despised the will of God
in their daily lives. Instead they found men offering half-hearted
sacrifices, bringing to God not of their best, but dishonouring
Him by offering Him their worst. They still believed in sacrifice,
and professed to honour and obey God. The hollowness of their
profession was quite differently shown from the hollowness in
the time of the pre-exilic prophets. Nevertheless it was a hollow
profession, the half-heartedness of whose spirit was shown in the
unworthiness of what they brought to the altar. The post-exilic
prophets no more than their pre-exilic predecessors taught that
sacrifice could be effective when it was not the organ of the spirit,
for both penetrated behind the deed to the spirit that prompted it.
Taken throughout, the Old Testament nowhere teaches that
sacrifice is valid without relation to the spirit, and nowhere does
it teach that sacrifice is of universal validity.

Reference has been made to the Passover, which has unique
features amongst the sacrifices of Israel. 1 We find it combined
with the feast of Unleavened Bread, but it is generally believed
that originally these were two separate festivals, 2 and that Passover
was observed before the entry into Canaan. 3 The feast of Un-
leavened Bread was an agricultural festival and it may have been
observed by the Canaanites, and have been taken over from them

surrender to it*, says Wheeler Robinson (J.T.S., loc. cit., p. 132). In magic everything
depends on the correct technique; in religion everything depends on the spirit. If the
sacrifices were actualized approaches to God, they were meaningless without that inner
approach which they were intended to actualize.

1 For studies of this festival and its ntual cf. G. B. Gray, 'Passover and Unleavened
Bread: the Laws of J, E, and D', J.T.S., xxxvii, 1936, pp. 241 fF.; N. H. Snaith, The
Jewish New Year Festival, 1947, pp. 13 f; T. H. Gaster, Passover: its History and Traditions,
1949. Cf. also A. C. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel, pp. 87 flf.

a Cf. J. Pedersen, Israel III-IV, pp. 400 f.: 'The events of the spring festival warrant
the presumption that it is a combination of two originally independent festivals, a pre-
Canaanite pastoral feast which sanctified the firstborn, and a Canaamte peasant feast
which sanctified the barley crops/ This has long been the common view of scholars.

8 Cf. Pedersen, ibid , p 382: c lt is clear that the Passover was such a popular festival before
the immigration.*

52

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

by the Israelites and associated with their own faith. So far as
the Passover is concerned, it is closely connected with the Exodus
from Egypt, 1 and it is almost certain that it was not borrowed
from the Canaanites, but was observed prior to the entry into
Canaan. Neither in form nor in significance must it be traced to
an alien source. There are, however, singularly few references to
the Passover in the Old Testament, and of these none is found in
the Psalter and only one in the prophetic Canon, where mention
is made in the book of Ezekiel. 2 Nevertheless, the references
that are found stand in both the earliest and the latest documents
of the Old Testament. We find them in the oldest strand of the
Pentateuch, 8 in the Code of Deuteronomy, 4 in the Priestly Code, 5
in the Deuteronomic history, 6 and in the work of the Chronicler. 7
It is known that in New Testament times this festival was
observed, and in later Judaism it continued to be observed, though
in a modified form after the destruction of the Temple. Its
observance in Egypt was a domestic one, but with the centraliza-
tion of worship in the Code of Deuteronomy it was transferred
to the place -where the central shrine should exist, and we learn
that in the reign of Josiah it was kept in Jerusalem by a great
concourse of people. 8 In New Testament times large numbers
went up to Jerusalem. The feast continued to have a family
character, however, and this it never lost.

More important than the form, and than any change of form
which the festival underwent in its history, is the significance it
bore. We have little more than speculation to guide us in deter-
mining what its original significance may have been. Many
scholars believe that it was originally a nomadic festival, and that
the choice of a time and the keeping within doors indicate some
relation to moon worship and the guarding against evil influences

1 Its observance doubtless goes back far behind the time of Moses and the Exodus,
and its original significance is a matter of conjecture. Cf. Caster, op. cit. t pp. 16 fif. For
Israel after the Exodus its significance was connected with that event.

8 Ezk. xlv. 21. 3 Exod, xu. 21 flf., xxxiv. 25.

4 Deut. xvi. i flf.

6 Exod. xii. II ff., 43 fit.; Lev. xxiii. 5; Num. ix. 6 f, xxviii. 16, -rarriii. 3.

6 Josh. v. 10 f.; 2 Kings xxiii. 21 f 7 2 Chr. xxx. I flT., xxxv. I C; Ezr. vL 19 f.

8 2 Kings xxiii. 21 J9f., 2 Chron. xxv, i flf.

53

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

associated with the moon. 1 To the student of the Bible this is
completely immaterial. How ancient the rite may be, and what
significance it may have had at first, have no bearing on the study
of the Bible. 2 The Israelites were bidden to celebrate it in order
to remember their deliverance from Egypt and what that
deliverance had meant to them as a people. 3 It was charged with
a historical and more than historical meaning. No longer was it
supposed to do anything for them, whatever apotropaic power
it might once have been supposed to have. It could, however, do
something in them. To men who made this festival the vehicle
of their remembrance in thanksgiving of the mighty acts of God
for their fathers and of the divine election of Israel in grace, it
could be the vehicle of the renewal of the Covenant and of their
loyalty to God. 4 Its significance depended on the spirit they
brought to it. If there was no thought beyond that of the slaughter
and the meal, it would be as devoid of religious significance as
a Christmas dinner. If it was kept as it was meant to be kept, as
a sacred memorial, it could but strengthen faith in God and
stimulate the spirit of consecration to His service. Although this
sacrifice is mentioned only in the Law, and in writers who
favoured the observance of the cultus, it is significant that here
once more we find the same principles apply, and emphasis is
laid on the spirit of remembrance that men brought to the festival,
and not merely on the ritual details. 5

There is one important passage in the prophetic Canon,

1 Cf. Oesterley and Robinson, Hebrew Religion, 2nd ed , 1937, pp. 129 ff ; "W. J.
Moulton, in Hastings** DJ3., iii, 1900, pp. 688 fF.; J. N. Schofield, The Religious Back-
ground of the Bible, 1944, pp. 70 f.

3 Cf. A. C. Welch, Prophet and Pnest in Old Israel, p. 93: 'Passover was a palimpsest,
like the religion of which it formed a leading feature In the background appeared the
characteristics of a lower type of religion, which had undergone the transforming in-
fluence of a higher faith. The motives which effected this transformation were taken from
the historic and redemptive character of Yahwism, and so were directly derived from the
Mosaic reform.* 3 Exod. xiii. 3, Deut. xvi. 3.

4 Cf. the Deuteronomic law of the firstfruits, which is similarly made the vehicle of
the remembrance of the deliverance from Egypt and of self^surrender to God in gratitude
(Deut. xxvi. i ff.).

5 Cf. N. W. Porteous, Interpretation, iii, 1949, p. 414: *We must not allow the denuncia-
tion of Israel's prophets, justifiable as they undoubtedly were, to blind us to the service
which Israel's cult must have rendered in maintaining through the centuries the faith
and obedience of many a pious Israelite.'

54

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

dealing with a sacrifice quite different from any mentioned in the
Law, and of a potency transcending that of any animal sacrifice,
where we find that the same principles that we have found in the
Law still apply. This passage stands in Deutero-Isaiah, who is
commonly held to be the most spiritual of the prophets. He it is
who rises to full speculative monotheism and its corollary in
universalism, and who emphasizes the election of Israel, together
with the call to a world-wide mission which that election lays on
her. It is well known that there are passages called the Servant
Songs, 1 culminating in the great song which stands in Isa. Hi.
13-liiL 12. In this song we read that the Servant is led as a lamb
to the slaughter and is cut off from the land of the living. Yet he
is no mere martyr. By most writers a series of four songs is found,
of which the first tells of the Servant's mission and the gentleness
and persistence with which it is undertaken; the second indicates
the double nature of the mission, first to Israel itself and then to
the whole world; while the third tells of the suffering in which
his mission will involve him. *I gave my back to the smiters, and
my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair/ 2 It is only when
we come to the fourth song, however, that we learn that his
mission will involve him in death and that the suffering will be
more than the consequence of the mission. For here it becomes
apparent that it is the organ of the mission. The Servant's death
is referred to as a guilt-offering, and it is said to be potent. 3 It
is not merely that we have this particular technical term applied
to him. The whole thought is sacrificial. It is said that he shall bear
the sins of many, and that men will say, 'Surely he hath borne our

1 These are most commonly delimited as Isa. xhi 1-4, xlix. 1-6, 1 4-9, Hi. 13-hii. 12.
For some variations of this view cf. the writer's The Servant of the Lord, 1952, p. 6 n.
While this work was in the press J. Lindblom published his important study, The Servant
Songs in Detttero-Isaiah, 1952, in which he found the verses immediately following the
first three to contain interpretative oracles, while in the case of the fourth he delimited
the song proper as liii. 2-12. z Isa. L 6.

3 Isa. Hi. 10. The rendering of R.V. is *When thou shalt make his soul an offering for
sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days'. It is agreed by all editors that the text
is here not in its original state, and many reconstructions have been proposed. The
suggestion of R. Levy, Detttero-Isaiah, 1925, pp. 266 f., is very simple, consisting merely
in the different division of the consonants of the first two words, to yield ' e meth sam
instead of im tdstm. The rendering would then be 'Truly he gave himself an offering for
sin; he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days*.

c 55

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

griefs and carried our sorrows . . . He was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement
of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.' *
Just as the death of a sacrificed animal may be potent in the service
of the offerer when it is the organ of his approach to God, so the
death of the Servant is potent, but only, be it observed, when men
bring to that death the spirit which makes it the organ of their
approach to God. They must recognize that his death is for them,
and must confess their sins: 'All we like sheep have gone astray;
we have turned everyone to his own way; and the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us all/ 2 Just as in the thought and
teaching of the Law sacrifice must bear a two-way traffic or none,
being the organ of men's approach to God before it could be the
organ of God's approach in power to them, so here the death of
the Servant is the organ of men's approach to God before it is
the organ of their healing. Its potency is then expressed in the
words: *My righteous servant shall justify many.' 3 In this context
this means something more than 'shall declare them to be in the
right', or 'give a verdict in their favour'. It is well known that
this verb often has such a forensic sense. But a just judge only
gives a verdict in accordance with justice, and never declares the
guilty innocent. 4 That God is a just Judge is the fundamental

1 Isa. hrL 4f. 2 Isa. Mi, 6.

3 Isa. liii. ii. The difficulties of the text here do not affect the present use of this verse.
The Septuagint version and the Dead Sea Scroll pSIa) add the word 'light* after 'he
shall see*. P. Volz suggests that the word 'righteous', which stands awkwardly in the
text, is a dittograph, and that a misread abbreviation has given 'by his knowledge*
instead of 'with the knowledge of the Lord* (cf. Jesaia II, 1932, pp. 170 ff.). The text
would then read 'And after his travail of soul he shall see light, and be satisfied with the
knowledge of the Lord. My servant shall justify many, for the sins he bore are theirs/
With this compare the largely similar reconstruction of J. Lindblom (op. dt. 9 p. 45 n.).
Many other reconstructions of this text have been proposed, R. J. Tournay, R.B., hx,
1952, pp. 501 , transposes the word 'righteous* to the previous clause, to give 'the
righteous one shall be satisfied with knowledge.' Some Hebrew MSS instead of 'by his
knowledge* read 'by his misfortune*, and this is followed by P. Humbert, La Bible du
Centenaire, ii, 1947, p. 417. The word is then read with what follows: *By his sufferings
ray servant shall justify many.' So also E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, ii, 1943, pp.
182, 190; P. Auvray and J. Steinmann, Isaie (Jerusalem Bible), 1951, p. 208.

4 C G. Schrenk, in writing of the Pauline doctrine of justification: * "Forensic" does
not mean that the sinner is treated as if he were righteous, for God's sovereign judicial
declaration produces an actual effect.' (E. Tr. by J. 1C Coates, Righteousness, Bible Key
Words, iv, 1951, p. 45, from Th. WJB. t ii, 1935, p. 207.)

56

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

teaching of the Bible, and none of the prophets would have
questioned it. If, then, a verdict is given in favour of men who
confess their guilt, it is because they have become transformed
in the very quality of their being. They have become righteous
by the cleansing of their whole personality. This is the miracle
that Isaiah felt to be -wrought within his own personality in the
moment when the live coal touched his lips in the experience of
his call. 4 Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken
away, and thy sin purged/ x The man who a moment before
felt that in the presence of the holy God sin could not exist, and
that therefore he must perish with his sin, now felt that he was
separated from his sin, so that it alone might perish and he might
live. So here, in connection with the death of the Servant, when
men are pronounced righteous, it is because they have become
righteous with the righteousness of the Servant. They who
identify themselves with him in his death find that he identifies
himself with them in his righteousness. For it is made clear that
the Servant suffers wholly for others, and not for himself also.
*He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.' 2
Just as a sacrificed animal must be without physical blemish, he
was without moral blemish, dying a death he did not deserve to
die, that men who deserved to die might be transmuted into
his own righteousness in the presence of God.

Moreover, the Servant yields himself willingly to death.
Unlike the animals that are sacrificed, and that are taken without
their own volition to the altar, the Servant gives himself. 'I gave
my back to the smiters ... I hid not my face from shame and
spitting.' 3 Not his body alone, but his whole personality bore the
two-way traffic that lifted men to God and brought them
cleansing of spirit. And yet again, the efficacy of this sacrifice is
wider than that of any contemplated in the Law. There were
sacrifices that availed for individuals, and the sacrifice of the Day
of Atonement could avail for all Israel, when individuals or nation
validated the sacrifice by their approach to God with the offering.
Here, in the death of the Servant, however, is a sacrifice that

1 Isa. vi. 7. a Isa. lid. 9. s Isa. 1. 6.

57

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

reaches beyond Israel to the wider world to -which Israel is sent
in her mission. It is men of the Gentiles who are filled with awe
as they contemplate the sufferings of the Servant, and who by
confession realize that he stands in their place and then find
justification.

Here, then, is a sacrifice that transcends any in the Law. It is by
far the deepest word on sacrifice contained in the Old Testament,
and it stands in the prophetic Canon and in the most spiritual of
the prophets. It does not speak of a sacrifice that merely ex opere
operate achieves something independently of the spirit of the
worshippers, and it is not therefore like the sacrifices that the
pre-exilic prophets so freely condemned. It conforms to the
pattern of sacrifice as conceived in the Law, in that it is the organ
of the spirit of man before it becomes the organ of blessing unto
him, yet its blessing is not achieved by the spirit he brings, but is
achieved in and for him as the act of God, Who lays his iniquity
on the Servant in the moment of his confession.

The identification of the Servant does not directly concern us
here, since our primary interest is to consider whether prophets
and lawgivers in Israel had fundamentally opposed ideas as to the
essence of religion, and whether they had irreconcilably different
views as to the meaning and the efficacy of sacrifice. It seems to be
clear that only a superficial reading of the Old Testament can lead
to such a view, and that the more we penetrate to the essence of
its thought the greater the measure of unity we find here. Never-
theless it has been said above that it is permissible to find peril
in the Law's excessive concern for involuntary acts and ritual
offences, and to recognize that in the differing emphases of Law
and Prophets there may be differing worth. In the preoccupation
of the pre-exilic prophets with the reflection of the character
of God in life lies their chief glory, and in the prophecy of
the sacrifice of the Servant the prophetic Canon carries the
profoundest word on sacrifice and its power which the Old
Testament contains.

While the identification of the Servant is not of direct concern
to us at the moment, it is of importance for our general theme, and

58

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

we shall find that it provides one of the most important links that
bind the two Testaments together. To discuss this question fully
would require a disproportionate amount of space in the present
work, and is the less necessary as the writer has discussed it
elsewhere. 1 Few questions arising from the Old Testament have
been more discussed, and on few has there been less agreement,
even amongst recent writers. Traditionally the Servant has been
identified with the Messiah in the Christian Church and with
Israel by the Jews. Since the coming of critical scholarship the
identification with Israel has been heavily favoured by non-
Jewish scholars, and there is certainly much to be said in its favour.
Nevertheless, this identification leaves so many problems unsolved
that it cannot be wholly satisfying, and in particular it is difficult
to carry it consistently through the fourth Song which has been
discussed above. It is hard to avoid the feeling that in this Song
the writer has an individual in mind, and to this scholarship has
inclined increasingly during the last half century. At first it tried
to find some individual who preceded the prophet, or who was
his contemporary, and a long line of unsuccessful candidates has
been brought forward. Then it tried to identify the Servant with
the prophet himself, but this only led to fresh difficulties which
all the shifts resorted to have failed to resolve. 2 Hence there is now

1 C The Servant of the Lord, pp. 3 fF. For a much fuller study of the history of inter-
pretation, together with a discussion of all the problems attaching to these Songs, cf.
C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, 1948. In both, and especially in
the latter, the reader will find references to much of the vast literature devoted to this
question.

2 A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, and ed., 1952, Appendix, pp. 25 ,
takes the writer to task because he said (The Servant of the Lord, pp. n f ): 'If the prophet
really believed that he was destined to set judgement in the earth, and to see the isles wait
for his law, and that men would acknowledge that he was wounded for their transgres-
sions and bruised for their iniquities, and that his death was a sin-offering for their sins,
whereby they should find justification, he was only a misguided, self-opinionated dreamer,
and not in any sense the mouthpiece of God.' Bentzen observes that *He who according
to Church Theology fulfilled the prophecy . . . had the same ideas of himself*, and
asks *Was he, then "a misguided, self-opinionated dreamer, and not in any sense the
mouthpiece of God"?' To this the writer would answer with a definite 'No*, and would
observe that the two cases are in no way parallel. If the prophet entertained such thoughts
of himself they were demonstrably vain; if Jesus entertained them they were demonstrably
justified. !Many have made the confession in all countries and are still making it.
There is surely all the difference in the world between a justified and an unjustified
faith.

59

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

a turning back to the messianic interpretation, though with the
recognition of some fluidity in the concept.

Recent discussion has moved in two directions. It has sought
to trace the concept back to its roots and to trace it forward to the
fulfilment the author contemplated. It is probable that it had
roots in the cultus, 1 but quite improbable that the prophet
thought simply of Israel or of any contemporary or earlier
individual. In the present writer's judgement there is oscillation
in the thought, such as Wheeler Robinson found to be character-
istic of much Hebrew thought. 2 But whereas in this connection
Dr. Robinson thought of oscillation between the prophet him-
self and Israel, it is more probable that it was oscillation between
Israel, that was called to be the Servant of the Lord, and a future
individual who should perfectly represent Israel and carry its
mission to a unique degree in himself. Nevertheless, it was
probably not a linear development from community to individual,
but a real oscillation. The mission the Servant would exercise
would still be the mission of Israel, and in so far as he should
be the representative of Israel he would call all Israel to enter into
the mission, so that he might be truly its representative. Just as
the High Priest could not truly represent the people in his con-
fession on the Day of Atonement unless his confession was
echoed in their hearts, so the Servant could not represent Israel
unless she entered into his mission and realized that it was hers.
As we proceed with our study we shall find the utmost signifi-
cance in the whole concept of the Servant, and it will provide not
only a powerful link to bind the two Testaments together, but
an important focal point of the unity of the Bible.

So far as the immediate issue of the present chapter is concerned,
we perceive that while there is a difference of emphasis as between
the Law and the Prophets, in both and elsewhere there is a recog-

1 Cf. The Servant of the Lord, pp. 86 f, and the literature mentioned there

2 Cf. "The Hebrew Conception of Corporate Personality', in Werden und Wesen des
Alien Testaments, ed. by J. Hempel (B.Z.A/W. No. 66), 1936, pp. 46 f; also The People
and the Book, ed. by A. S. Peake, 1925, pp. 375 flf., and The Psalmists, ed, by D. C. Simpson,
1926, pp. 82 fF. On this characteristic of Hebrew thought cf. J. Pedersen, Israel J-II, 1926,
PP. 275 fL

60

THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS

nition that sacrifice and other ritual acts were meaningless unless
they were charged, with the spirit of the worshipper, when they
became effective because charged with divine power. Neither
Law nor Prophets regarded man as the source of his own enrich-
ment, but as able only to fulfil the conditions whereby its source
in God might be opened up to him. Moreover, both regarded
the attitude of the heart and the bearing in life as more funda-
mental to true religion than ritual forms. For in both Law and
Prophets ethical religion can be found. Nor can any contradiction
of this be found in the other books of the Bible, in the totality
of their teaching, while in the Psalter we have passages which
express rich spiritual teaching though without hostility to the
cultus. The modern view of the Psalter finds its roots in the
cultus, and holds that many of the psalms were sung to the
accompaniment of ritual acts, for their completion and interpre-
tation. The Psalter therefore forms a bond between the Law and
the Prophets, and not a few of its psalms are well calculated to
call forth from the worshipper the spirit which was so essential
to the valid performance of the ritual. 1 There is therefore a
significant bond of unity running through all the diversity of
the Old Testament.

1 Cf. A. C. Welch, Prophet and Priest in Old Israel pp. 131 flf.

Ill

GOD AND MAN

EVIDENCE of the unity of the Bible is to be found in its teachings
about God and man. It would be easy, of course, to cull texts
from the Bible which present views of God or of man which are
repudiated elsewhere. One of the most familiar instances is the
statement in 2 Sam. xxiv. i that the Lord moved David to
number the people and then was angry with him for doing it,
and the variation of this in I Chron. xxi. I, where the instigator
is changed from the Lord to Satan. It is probable that the theology
of the Chronicler was offended by the earlier statement, and that
this was why he changed it. Or again, there are passages which
say that at death all men go to Sheol, 1 where they are isolated
from God 2 and in a common misery, 3 and whence there is no
return, 4 while other passages teach a doctrine of resurrection, 5 or
look towards something richer than the dreary prospect of
Sheol. 6 It is unnecessary to deny or to minimize such divergences
within the Bible. Nevertheless, when we look at the Bible as a
whole we find a substantial, and indeed a remarkable, unity

1 C Psa. xlix. 14 (Heb. 15).

2 Cf. Psa. xxx. 9 (Heb. 10), Ixxxviii. 10 fF. (Heb n fF.), cxv. 17.
8 Cf. Job. x. 2,1 fF., xiv. 22.

4 Cf. Job. vii. 9, 2 Sam. xii. 23.

5 Cf. Dan. xii. 2 Cf. also Isa. xxvi. 19, -where, however, E. F. SutclifFe maintains
that the reference is to national resurrection as in Ezk. xxxvii. i ff. See The Old Testament
and the Future Life, 1946, pp. 128 f. So also E J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, i, 1941, p. 298,

6 Cf. Psa. xlrx. 15 (Heb. 16), Ixxiii. 23 f. The interpretation of both these passages is
disputed, and there is no agreement amongst scholars as to how far -we may find here
the thought of an Afterlife. It seems probable that the writers were at least reaching after
a more satisfying faith, and the same is true of the author of Job xix. 25 fF. Here the
meaning is undeniably obscure, and some editors emend the text to remove any possible
reference to resurrection, while others emend it in the opposite sense, to make such a
reference clearer. It seems wiser to recognize the ambiguity of the text as we have it,
and to see the writer as one who came to the verge of a belief in a more worth-while
Hereafter without securely grasping it. It should be noted, too, that in Psa. cxxxix. 8
we find the thought that even in Sheol isolation from God is not complete, though there
the writer is thinking of the power of God as reaching to it rather than of His fellowship
as being open to the dead there.

62

GOD AND MAN

about its teaching. It has been already said that it is the unity of
a growth, and that ideas that were incipient at first were more
clearly developed later, while other ideas were outgrown and
repudiated in the course of the development. Yet it is not the
case that we start in the Old Testament with a wholly primitive
idea of God, which is transformed out of all recognition by the
end of the process of development, so that it is only the end of the
process which has abiding value for men. Much is constant from
the earliest documents of the Bible to the latest, though with a
developing richness of meaning, 1 and the idea of God and man
which is taken for granted in the New Testament is that which
is characteristic of the Old Testament; and it has been already
said that much goes back beyond the earliest documents to the
time of Moses. Here some of these elements will be noted, though
it is clearly impossible to present a complete Biblical Theology
within the limits of our present study.

It is commonly observed that monotheism is found in the
three religions which developed out of the religion of the Old
Testament Judaism, Christianity, and Iskm. The seeds of this
monotheism can be found, as has been said, in the work of Moses,
and the incipient monotheism of the faith established in Israel
by Moses became the clear and explicit monotheism of the
prophets, which continued in the faith of the New Testament.
This monotheism is not in any way menaced by the New
Testament teaching on the Person of Christ. For if Christ is pre-
sented as God and Man, the God was not a distinct Being from
Him our Lord called Father. Certainly monotheism can be said
to be the characteristic teaching of theBible. Though passages can
be found in which the existence of other gods beside Yahweh is
implied, 2 and though it is freely stated in the Bible that many in
Israel worshipped other gods, it is nowhere taught that Israel may
rightly worship them. The worship of one God, and one God
only, was legitimate for Israel. *Thou shalt have no other gods

1 Cf. O. J. Baab, The Theology of the Old Testament, 1949, p. 231: 'While changing
with the passage of time, yet . . . Hebrew religion through die centuries perpetuated
itself as a distinctive way of life and belief.'

2 C Judges xi. 24; i Sam. xxvL 19.

c* 63

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

beside me* is laid down for Israel in the Decalogue, 1 and though
many scholars have ascribed this to a much later time than the
days of Moses, there seems no reason to deny that it stood in the
Ten Commandments as delivered to Israel by Moses. 2 In the
teaching of the Old Testament other gods were thought at first
to be negligible, or at best for other peoples, and then to be
non-existent. 'Beside me there is no God.' 3

It is further characteristic of the teaching of the Old Testament,
and carried over into that of the New without question, that God
is not to be represented by idols. There are, indeed, many
references to Israelite idols, and so commended a person as
Gideon is declared to have made an ephod, which was obviously
some sort of image here. 4 Nevertheless, it remains true that idols
nowhere belong to the true religion of the Old Testament. In
the Decalogue the making of any graven image is prohibited, 5
while in the so-called Ritual Decalogue of Ex. xxxiv the making
of molten images is forbidden. 6 It is impossible here to discuss the
relation between these two Decalogues, 7 but it is not without
significance that in both the making of images of Yahweh is
prohibited. The fact that one uses one word for image and the
other another is of no significance. For it would be fantastic to
suppose that the one permitted a molten image but prohibited a
graven image, while the other permitted a graven image but
prohibited a molten. The Decalogue of Exod. xx is usually
attributed to the E document of the Pentateuch, while that of

1 Exod, xx. 3; Deut. v. 7. The Hebrew here is ambiguous, and the meaning could be
'in my presence* as in R.V., or 'beside me* as in R.V. margin. Since it is improbable
that the reference was local, and even more improbable that a law which prohibited the
worship of other gods in one place would have permitted it in another such an idea
reducing the first commandment to triviality we may accept the rendering given above.
Cf. J. C. Rylaarsdam, The Interpreter's Bible, i, 1952, p. 980: 'Yahweh is to be the only
God Israel recognizes and worships. The theoretical question about the existence of other
gods is not raised*' Cf. also Hos. xiii. 4.

8 C the writer's paper 'Moses and the Decalogue*, B.JJR.JL,., xxxiv, 195152, pp. 81 fiL
(French Tr. JR~HJ>J., xxxii, 1952, pp. 7 fT.).

s lsa.xliv. 6.

* Judges viii. 27. On Gideon's ephod c BJJLL., loc. dt., pp. 102 n. (R.H.P.R.
loc. dt. f pp. 26 ).

8 Exod. xx. 4; Deut, v. 8.

6 Exod. xxxiv. 17.

7 This is discussed in the above mentioned paper on 'Moses and the Decalogue'.

64

GOD AND MAN

Exod. xxxiv is ascribed to the J document. 1 That the choice of
the term graven image in E was intended to allow a molten image
is excluded by the simple fact that the story of the Golden Calf 2
is assigned to E, and it shows that by the authors of this document
molten images were no less strongly condemned than graven.
Moreover, we have no evidence that any image of Yahweh ever
stood in the Shrine of Shiloh or in the Jerusalem Temple. 3 If the
worship of Yahweh was older than the time of Moses and its
older form is reflected in the Decalogue of Exod. xxxiv, it would
appear that Yahwism was always an imageless faith. 4 Certainly
there is no reason to doubt that it was imageless in principle
from the time of Moses, however much declension there may
have been in practice in post-Mosaic days. For the breach of this
command in later times no more proves that the command could
not have been promulgated than the prevalence of adultery in
the modern world proves that the seventh commandment has
not yet been promulgated.

The most significant things that are taught about God's charac-
ter are deeply stamped on the Bible as a whole, and they all spring
from Israel's experience of God in the period of the Exodus.
Underlying the whole thought of the Bible is the idea of a God
Who reveals Himself in history and experience. Such a thought
of God is not reached speculatively by a philosopher, but is born
of concrete history and experience through which men received
the revelation of the character of God. That God employs many
media of revelation is everywhere recognized in the Bible, but all
the others may be found in the thought of other religions. Other
faiths tell of the activity of God in Nature, and revelation through
dreams and omens is not confined to the Bible. Other religions,
indeed, offer examples of revelation through prophetic person-
ality; nor is it peculiar to Israel to think of God as in control of

1 There are, of course, some scholars who date the former of these later than the
document E, and the latter later than the document J. C B.J.R.L., loc. cit., pp 83 n ,
91 n. (R.H.P.R., loc. cit , pp. 9 n., 15 f. n.). 2 Exod. xxxii,

3 C E. Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, E. Tr., 1923, p. 41: 'The absence of
any images which is so indubitably attested as regards the sanctuaries of Shiloh and
Jerusalem must, after all, have had some reason.'

4 This is the view which is argued in the writer's paper on *Moscs and the Decalogue*.

65

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

history and intervening to help His people. What is peculiar to
Israel is the idea of a revelation that is given in history and
experience in a single complex. Here we do not have first the
history and then its interpretation. We have first the announce-
ment of the significant fact of the history through a prophetic
person, speaking in the name of God, then the fulfilment of the
announcement, and finally the interpretation of the event by one
whose credentials were supplied by die fulfilment. The announce-
ment, be it stressed, is not that of the soothsayer, who by his
skilful technique wrests the secrets of the future to satisfy men's
curiosity or their needs. It is the announcement of the prophet,
who depends not on his own skill or technique, but on the com-
plete assurance that it is God Who has put die word in his heart
and in his mouth. History records many examples of leaders who
have promised deliverance and have so infused their followers
with confidence that they have wrought valiantly, and the
deliverance has been achieved. Here, however, we find a different
pattern. The deliverance from Egypt was not won by the
superhuman valour to which Moses inspired his followers. Here
the personal and the impersonal factors were inextricably woven
together, and it was in the complex of the whole that the revel-
ation was given.

It is quite inadequate, therefore, to represent this simply as
revelation in history. Nowhere in the Bible is it taught that all
history is the revelation of God, or that everything that happens
reflects His will. If He is held to be active on the plane of history,
He is not held to be the sole actor, or the only significant actor.
To this we shall have to return, but for the present it is only
necessary to draw attention to this important feature of the whole
Exodus complex. The deliverance was not wrought by Moses,
or entirely independent of him. His prophetic word and the
fulfilment in history dovetailed into one another, and yet neither
can be explained from the other; nor did either alone provide the
vehicle of the revelation.

As for the revelation of God mediated through this complex of
personal and impersonal factors, it may suffice to mention a few

66

GOD AND MAN

of its elements. The cry of the oppressed Israelites went up to
God from Egypt and aroused Him to activity on their behalf. His
hatred of the maltreatment of man by man did not have to wait
to be announced by the eighth century prophets. It was already
unfolded to men here. Moreover, God's compassion for the
oppressed is as much revealed as His anger against the oppressor.
It is in a passage assigned to the earliest document of the Penta-
teuch that we read: 'The Lord, the Lord, a God full of compassion
and gracious, slow to anger and plenteous in mercy and truth'; 1
and the same thought is echoed in one of the latest of the Old
Testament prophets, in the book of Joel. 2 Nevertheless, there is
development in the thought of the divine compassion. For while
it is ever called forth by man's inhumanity to man, it was in time
perceived to be called forth even by man's hostility to God.
When Israel by her folly involved herself in ruin and failed to see
that the way of her well-being lay in obedience to the will of
God, she merited the stern rejection and the dire punishment of
God. Yet His compassion for her was stirred and He sent His
prophets to awaken her to the sense of her need, 3 and though He
brought disaster on Israel it was less to punish her in wrath than
to seek her in love. In such prophetic messages the compassion of
God was lifted from something that concerned itself only with
physical suffering and was seen to be called forth by the spiritual
condition of men. With the widening of the prophetic horizon
to include all mankind the way was prepared for the revelation
in the New Testament of the divine compassion for men of every
race who are in spiritual need.

Nor is the divine compassion that of the helpless spectator.
Sometimes our heart is wrung with pity at the tragedy of the
experience of some friend, and not the least poignant part of the
pain for us is the recognition of our helplessness to do anything
effective to meet the situation. But God is not alone a God of
compassion. He is a saving God. His salvation manifests itself in

1 Exod. xxxiv. 6.

8 Joel ii. 13. Cf. also Psa. IxxxvL 15, caii. 8, adv. 8; Jonah iv. 2; Neb. Ix. 17.
3 Cf. Hos. xi. 8 ; Jer. vii. 13, 25, xi. 7, xxv. 4, xxvi. 5, xxix. 19, xxxii. 33, xxxv. 14 f ,
xliv. 4.

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

a form appropriate to the need. Here again, therefore, while the
thought of God as a saving God is constant throughout the Old
Testament and lives on in the New, there is really a considerable
development in the thought. At the Exodus He delivered Israel
from the Egyptian bondage; at the other end of the development
He is seen to deliver men from the corruption of sin. For -with the
perception that his compassion reached down beyond man's
physical estate to his spiritual condition it was seen that His
salvation reached as far as His compassion. Nowhere is He a
helpless God. His resources are ever equal to His purposes.

It is a constant teaching of the Bible that He is a faithful God. 1
By this it is meant that He is to be relied upon, and that He is not
arbitrary and changeable. There are some passages, indeed, where
God is presented as unpredictable in His reactions, and where
arbitrariness is attributed to Him. Such a passage is that already
referred to, where He is represented as moving David to number
the people in order then to blaze forth in wrath against Kim for the
act. Such passages show traces of older and primitive ideas of God,
which were only gradually eradicated in Israel. Far more charac-
teristic of the thought of the Bible is the teaching that God is
dependable. He is dependable in relation to His Covenant with
Israel, 2 but He is also dependable in a wider context. The earliest
source of the Pentateuch tells us that God made man free free
to make or to mar his own life, free to enjoy or to repudiate the
divine fellowship, free to obey or to disobey the will of God.
That freedom He always respects. He never reduces men to the
status of puppets, and though He uses their acts to further His
own purposes they are still their acts. He may make the Assyrian
the rod of His anger, 8 but the Assyrian still stands under condem-
nation for the cruel purpose of his heart. 4 The Assyrian's intention
is not to further the purpose of God; he may even cherish in his
heart a boastful contempt for God. 6 On the other hand, God may
claim for Himself men to share His counsel and to be the mouth-

1 Cf. Deut. vii. 9; Isa. xlbc. 7; Psa. Ixxxix. 2, , 9, 34; i Cor. i. 9; 2 Titn. ii. 13.

2 C Deut. vii. 9; Psa. Locnx. 35. 8 Isa. x. 5.

4 Isa. x. 12. B Isa. x. 7, ii.

68

GOD AND MAN

piece of His message, and they may so strongly feel the constraint
that is laid upon them that they declare themselves to be helpless
in His hand. 1 Yet actually they are never helpless, or the false
prophets and Judas would be beyond explanation. Their response
in surrender is necessary, and it is the completeness of that response
which makes it possible for them to be overwhelmed by the sense
of the divine power. For all such service of God the initiative must
ever be with God and not with man, and the call precedes the con-
secration. It is true that, in the case oflsaiah, theprophet-to-beheard
the voice saying * Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?' 2
and not a direct demand for his service. But before that he had
experienced the divine initiative in the cleansing of every fibre of
his being, laying upon him its claim. 3 His response in surrender
and consecration was still response to the divine initiative.

This divine initiative in grace runs through the whole Bible, at
whatever level that grace is seen to express itself, and the con-
straint it lays upon men is ever a moral constraint and not the
compulsion of force tnajeure. When God brings Israel out of
Egypt, the initiative is wholly His and the power is wholly His.
Yet Israel is not brought out willy-nilly without respect to her
freedom. Gladly she seizes the opportunity His grace provides and
follows the prophet whom He had sent. And it is a firm constant
of the prophetic teaching that while the initiative is ever with
God in sending His prophets to recall Israel to the path of wisdom,
that initiative is defeated until men freely respond in obedience
and faith. God never overrides human freedom. His mercy and
His love are bound in the unity of a single personality with His
faithfulness and His dependability.

The same thing is seen in connection with His Covenant with
Israel. This depends on the divine election of Israel, and the
initiative is therefore with God. It calls for a response from Israel
and the bringing of that response seals the Covenant. 4 From
Israel's side the election seems arbitrary, since she recognized that
there was nothing in her to justify it. 5 She was not better than

er-xx. 7ff. 2 Isa.vL8.

69

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

other nations or more manifestly desirable as a heritage. But that
does not mean that the election was arbitrary from God's point
of view. The choice of die prophets always filled them with
wonder and gave them the feeling that it was arbitrary, since
they could not explain it. The issue in the case of the prophets
who brought the response of true consecration showed that it
was not arbitrary, and prompts the wonder what might have
happened to the world if all those who were called to be prophets
had brought the same response. Similarly the prophets lamented
that every generation of Israel did not bring the same response in
consecration to the Covenant that the generation of the Exodus
had brought. God still respects the freedom of Israel, and though
He Who showed the initiative in the making of the Covenant will
show none in its breach, He recognized that Israel might show
that initiative and break the Covenant. In so doing she would
forfeit her claim on God, so that though He might still seek her
in love and try to bring her back to the covenant relation, it
would be because He was unchanging in His compassion for her
in her need, and not because she had any claim on Him. Each
succeeding generation of Israel inherited the blessings that the
mercy of God had brought upon her; each succeeding generation
inherited the revelation of the character and will of God that had
been granted to her. Yet the freedom of each generation was
respected and Israel was never forced into the covenant relation.
Each generation had to make the Covenant its own by its response
if it was to remain in that relation. 1

It is sometimes supposed that early Israel was entirely collective
in its thinking and later Israel became individualistic. It is true that
there is a stronger emphasis on individualism and on individual
responsibility in later times, but it is not true that there can be

1 C the present writer's Biblical Doctrine of Election, 1950, p. 48: 'The book of
Deuteronomy represents Moses as saying to Israel: "Yahweh our God made a covenant
with us in Horeb. It was not with our fathers that Yahweh made this covenant, but with
us, even with us, all of us who are alive here today" (Deut. v. 2 ). It is there implied
that the Covenant with the patriarchs was not valid for the generation of the Exodus,
but that only the Covenant into which they themselves entered could have validity
and meaning for them. And by the same token their Covenant could not have automatic
validity for the generations that followed."

70

GOD AND MAN

any sharp division of the kind just indicated. 1 Both early and late
it was recognized that while there was a corporate soul of Israel,
which might be obedient or disobedient to God, each individual
shared the responsibility to maintain his own obedience and thus
to contribute to the health of the soul of the people. Individual
and corporate elements belonged together, for man was both an
individual in the presence of God and a member of society with a
responsibility for its life and well-being, as well as for his own. In
days when men were regarding themselves as the helpless members
of a society for which they felt no responsibility, the individual
side of this double relationship had to be insisted on by prophets,
but this was not to the neglect of the collective. Jeremiah, who
insisted on the responsibility of the individual, did not forget that
the individual was swept in the stream of the nation's life. He who
urged men not to suppose that their misfortunes were the fruits of
their fathers* sins 2 was assured that their follies would entail
disaster for their children. In piteous terms he described how little
children, who could not by any stretch of individualism be held
responsible for the policies of their day, "would be dashed to
pieces by the ruthless foe in consequence of the false path the
nation was treading. 3 That children could suffer for the deeds of
their fathers Jeremiah fully realized, and he was far from offering
any doctrinaire teaching that desert and fortune were nicely
balanced for every individual. When his own kin plotted against
him and sought his death, he did not suppose that he was meeting
the just recompense of his deeds but cried out to God against
them. 4 An arid and extreme individualism is nowhere part of the
authentic teaching of the Bible, and Jeremiah was as far as any
from offering teaching comparable with that of Job's friends, or
of forgetting in his insistence on individual responsibility that man
is also a member of a society, indissolubly bound in a single
corporate whole with his fellow men. It is often noted that
he expressed the New Covenant in individual terms. It must

1 Cf. O. S. Rankin, Israel's Wisdom Literature, 1936, pp. 53 #", J- Hempel, Gott und
Mettsch im Alien Testament, 2nd ed., 1936, p. 192; J. de Fraine, Biblica, xxxiii, 1952, PP
324 flf., 445

2 Jer. xxxi. 29 f. a Jer. xvi. 4. * Jer. xii. 3, 6.

71

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

nevertheless be remembered that though the laws of the covenant
were to be written on the individual hearts of men, it was still
the covenant with the house of Israel. 1 The individual and the
corporate conception were held together in an indissoluble unity.
Every man's obedience to the law of the covenant was both his
personal responsibility to God as a member of the covenant
people, and also his duty and his service to the people to which
he belonged. By his obedience he was making his contribution to
the collective soul of the nation. He who brought no obedience
placed himself outside the covenant and was a peril to the whole
community.

That this is a characteristic thought of the Old Testament,
though understood at different levels, is clear when we remember
the very ancient story of God's conversation with Abraham about
the city of Sodom, where ten righteous men in the city might
have caused it to be spared. 2 By their righteousness they would
not alone have maintained their own relationship with God, but
would have served the whole city. Here, too, we find the thought
of the Remnant, which can be found throughout the Bible. 3
Though the city is destroyed a Remnant is saved. So in the story
of the Flood. Sometimes there is the thought of a righteous
Remnant, whose righteousness causes the whole community
to be spared; 4 sometimes the thought of a righteous Remnant
escaping itself from a destruction it is powerless to avert. 6 Some-
times there is even the thought of a Remnant spared not for its
own righteousness, but spared in the divine mercy in order that
it may transmit to another generation the heritage it does not
value for itself. 6

All of this far from exhausts the teaching about God which is
constant and yet growing throughout the Old Testament,
constant in its terms yet growing in the fullness of meaning that

1 Jer. xm. 31 fT. 2 Gen. xviii. 16 fF.

3 Cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. 70 ff. E. W. Heaton, J.T.S., N.S. iii, 1952,
pp. 27 f, raises a caveat against the use of tie term 'doctrine of the Remnant', which
may be misleading if it is forgotten that there is much variety in the conception of the
Remnant in different passages.

* As in the passage cited from Genesis.

5 Cf. Isa. iv. 3. Cf. Amos iv. u.

GOD AND MAN

is given to them. Our present purpose is merely to illustrate that
there is a fundamental unity, though a dynamic unity, in the
thought of God that runs through the Bible. Over against the
isolated passages that can be culled to illustrate divergences of
view there is a far more significant body of passages which reveal
a common view of the nature and character of God. Moreover,
all of the qualities of God that have been noted, and others which
have not been noted, are taken for granted in the New Testament.
The divine compassion for men who are in need, and whose
deepest need arises from their opposition to God's will, is expressed
in the word, and in the life and death, of Jesus, in a revelation
which is mediated in the context of history, where personal and
impersonal factors are knit together in a single complex no less
than in the Exodus complex. Moreover, here again the com-
passion is not a passive pity, but a power that expressed itself in
saving grace, electing and delivering that by the election and
the deliverance it might lay its constraint on men and claim their
loyalty and devotion. To all this we shall have occasion to return.

In its teaching about man the Bible says many things which
can be found also in other religions. He is the creature of God,
and endowed with powers which God willed for him. If he is the
crown and climax of all that lives in the world, it is not because
he elevated himself to this position, but because God willed that
he should be. All this, and much more that might be added,
while it must have its place in a Biblical Theology, is of but
passing interest to us here, where teaching more profoundly
significant is what commands our interest. The purpose of man's
creation is of more importance than the fact.

It is well known that we have two accounts of Creation lying
side by side in the Bible, and it is commonly held that they come
from widely separated ages. The second account stands in the
oldest document in the Pentateuch, 1 and the first is in a document
commonly dated nearly half a millennium later. 2 Many contrasts
between the two accounts are frequently underlined. Some
important elements which the two have in common are less

1 Gen. ii. 4 fL 2 Gen. i. I fi*.

73

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

frequently emphasized. The second account reveals unmistakably
the conception of man as designed for God's obedience and fellow-
ship. He was not designed to be the sport of the gods, or the
nourisher of the gods, or the slave of the gods. The command of
God was laid upon him, 1 but it was a command designed to
further man's well-being, and not to bring some gain to God.
Complete obedience was asked of him, but the reward of that
obedience was the fellowship of God, and disobedience broke
that fellowship and drove him forth from the presence of God
and from the bliss designed for him. 2 In all the simplicity of this
story there are profound teachings, which are accepted through-
out Biblical thought as a whole. In the Garden Adam is repre-
sented as -walking and talking with God in the simple intimacy of
friendship. Many throughout the Old Testament are represented
as living in that sort of intimacy with God, though it was an
intimacy into which the element of reverence on the part of man
must enter. Abraham is depicted as knowing such an intimacy, 8
and the prophets are set before us as men of God's council, 4 who
were privileged to sit in on God's deliberations, and also as men
who lived on terms of rich fellowship with God. Psalmists, again,
express their relations with God in terms of fellowship, and
though they worship Him in deep adoration, it is an adoration
which is touched into intimacy by God's giving of Himself to
them in fellowship. They worship Him not as men who lift
their eyes to Him afar off, but as men who are privileged to draw
nigh to Him and to rejoice in Him. When the New Testament
emphasizes the thought of God as Father, it is not presenting
some new thought which may be sought in vain in the Old.
Even the term 'Father' is not limited to the New Testament, but
is found already in the Old. 5 But beyond the terms used, when we
penetrate to the thought we find this conception of the relation-

1 Gen. li. 16 f. 2 Gen. lii. 23 s Gen. xv. i fF.

*Jer. xxaii. 18, 22. Cf. H. Wheeler Robinson, J.T.S., xlv, 1944, pp. 151 ff.

6 Cf. Isa. Ixiv. 8; Psa. caii. 13. Cf. G. E. Wright, J.N.E. 5., i, 1942, pp. 404 C, where,
however, it is pointed out that the thought of God as Father is not common in the Old
Testament. 'We must remember that the father-son conception is in continual danger of
degenerating into sentimentality, as has so often happened in modern times. It needs to
be united with the master-servant picture to give it backbone and support' (ibid. t p. 414).

74

GOD AND MAN

ship between God and man designed by God and experienced by
those wlio fulfil His purpose as one of intimacy and fellowship.

When now we return to the first account of Creation, we
find none of the naivete of expression that marks the second, but
some notable agreements. Here man is said to be formed in the
image of God. 1 By many writers this is understood to mean that
man was formed in the physical likeness of God, 2 but this the
present writer finds incredible. In the first pkce, the contrast
between the naive anthropomorphism of the second account and
the absence of anthropomorphism in the first account unless
it is found here is generally observed. If the emphasis in this
reference to the image of God is physical, then there is a cruder
anthropomorphism here than in the second account, where there
is no emphasis on man's physical similarity to God. Moreover,
in the very passage that states that man was made in the image of
God it is added: 'male and female created he them'. Man is there-
fore made a creature of sex. It is alien to the teaching of the Old
Testament in general that God is a Being of sex. 3 and certainly
it is aHen to the whole thought of the compilers of the Priestly
document, and it would be nothing short of astonishing for the
passage that stated man's likeness to God to specify his sex in that
connection. For if the reference in the first part of the verse is

1 Gen. i. 27.

2 Cf. A. Jeremias, Das Alte Testament im Lichte des Alien Orients, 4th ed., 1930, p. 53;
P. Humbert, tudes sur le Re'cit du Paradis et de la Chute, 1940, pp. 153 f; L. Kbhler,
Th.Z., iv, 1948, pp. i6f.; C. R. North, The Thought of the Old Testament, 1948, p. 27;
C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 1951, pp. 29 Ryder Smith says (ibid.,
p. 37): "The modern definition under -which "the image of God" in marr is described as
"moral and spiritual likeness" does not root in the First Chapter of Genesis but in the
teaching of the Prophets *

3 Cf. J. Hempel, 'Die Grenzen des Anthropomorphismus Jahwes im Alten Testament*,
Z.A.W., Ivii (N.F. xvi), 1939, pp. 75 ff. L G. Matthews would not exclude the thought
that God's sexuality is found here. He says (The Religious Pilgrimage of Israel, 1947, p.
75) : 'That the gods should go in pairs, male and female, was normal in all early religions.
Primitive man could not fTitnlc of the creative powers in other terms, and even a late
priestly writer has preserved the myth that must have been common among the Hebrews,
viz., that God made man in his own image, "male and female created he them".* H.
Gunkel, Genesis (H.K.), 5th ed., 1922, p. in, says the meaning is not that tnan was
created in the form of a single God, but in that of divine beings. It is, however, very
improbable that the Priestly writer thought on other than monotheistic terms. Gunkel
stresses the pronoun *our% but however this is explained it is improbable that it implies
any polytheism here.

75

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

physical, as that in the second half certainly is, the whole becomes
a declaration of God's sexuality. This is in the highest degree
improbable. The -writer of the passage was doubtless sufficiently
observant to know that neither in his physical frame in general,
nor in his sexuality in particular, is man to be differentiated from
the animals. Like them he has limbs and senses, like them he eats
and breathes, is born and dies. To suppose that what the writer
meant was no more than that man stands on two feet while most
animals stand on four is to credit him with a triviality in his
conception, of the Being of God that is not impressive. What
differentiates man from the lower creation most notably is not
to be found here, as the Priestly writer must surely have known,
and the image of God is something that significantly marks his
uniqueness amongst created things. 1 That uniqueness is to be
found in his spirit. 2 He has a quality of personality which dis-
tinguishes him from the lower creation and links him with God,
and which makes him a creature designed for the fellowship and
obedience of God. In accordance with this we find that immedi-
ately after his creation in the image of God, his Maker speaks
to him and lays His command upon him, 3 thus lifting him into
fellowship and laying upon him the law of obedience. To none
of the lower creatures is God represented as speaking in the
moment of their creation. It is only to man who is made in the
image of God, and as the corollary of that creation in His image,

1 Cf. P. Heinisch, Theology of the OU Testament, E. Tr. by W. Heidt, 1950, pp. 161 f.;
also Th. C. Vriezen, O.T.S , ii, 1943, pp. 87 J0f., esp. p. 104

2 Cf, S. R. Driver, Genesis (W.C.), 1904, p. 15: 'It relates, from the nature of the case,
to man's immaterial nature'; H. "Wheeler Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the Old Testa-
men^ 1913. p- 72: 'Made in His image, i,e. set in a similar relation of authority in regard
to aU other creatures*; H. HoLringer, H.S.A.T., 4th ed., i, 1922, p. u: "The idea of the
copying of the Physical form of God is quite excluded from P's conception of God*.
G. E. Wnght, The Interpreter's Bible, i, 1952, p 368a: 'Man "in the image of God'* means,
therefore, that there is a correspondence between the total being of God and the total
being of man. The thought cannot be confined to physical resemblance; indeed, it is
improbable that the physical is in the centre of attention. Instead, the emphasis must he
on the self-conscious. . . . This, of course, does not exclude the corporeal. . . . Yet
it does mean that the "image** in man must primarily be concerned with the deeper
aspects of personal being* (c C. A. Simpson, ibid., p. 485). F. Ceuppens, Genese J-III,
194$, pp. 4<5 f., rejects the corporeal view of the reference, and holds that what is in
mind is intelligence and wilt Cf, also F. Horst, Interpretation, iv, 1950, pp. 259 if.

* Gen. j. 28.

76

GOD AND MAN

that He speaks. Once more the law that is laid on man is not a
command to do anything which could be thought of as enriching
God, but an ordinance which is for man's good and gain. It is
permitted to him because God wills it for him. For God's will is
the first law of his being.

When a prophet, at whose great word we looked in an earlier
chapter, sought to express the deepest duty of man, he did so in
the terms: 'What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly,
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God'. 1 While the
terms of the obedience are different from those in Gen. i, where
they would scarcely be relevant, it is of interest to note that here
once more we find linked together obedience and fellowship,
obedience as the demand of God and fellowship as its inevitable
condition. Granting all the differences of level that are to be found
within the Bible, it is characteristic of its thought as a whole that
man is a creature capable of enjoying the fellowship of God and
made to serve Him, and that these two belong together.

This may be expressed more generally in the principle that
privilege carries responsibility, so that the repudiation of the
responsibility involves the forfeiture of the privilege. This is a
constant element of Biblical teaching everywhere. We have
seen this in relation to Israel's election and the Covenant. Israel
is chosen by God for a purpose, and when she repudiates the
purpose she violates the Covenant and renounces her claim on
God. In the hour of her election and the experience that demon-
strated that election to her she received a revelation of God
which she was charged to cherish and to pass on to her children,
and at the same rime the Covenant laid on her the obligation to
conform her life to the will of God. Often men supposed that
God was so tied to Israel that He must protect and preserve her
even though she flouted His will, and that He must honour her
though she dishonoured Him, but the prophets were tireless in
denouncing such an idea. Great was Israel's privilege in being
chosen to be the people of God; yet ultimately it was not for
privilege but for service that she 'was chosen, and the greatness

1 Mic. vi 8. With this c Dcut. x. 12.
77

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the privilege was matched by the greatness of the service to
which she was called.

Nor is such an idea limited to the Old Testament. In the New
Testament the Church is regarded as the elect of God, whose
election fills with the sense of high privilege all who share it, but
whose election lays on them an obligation to holy living which
it is perilous to decline. 1 The elect are not the divine favourites
who can do with impunity what others may not. They are
subject to the sternest condemnation when they fall below the
height of their railing. In the Old Testament Amos could say in
the name of God: 'You only have I known of all the families of
the earth; therefore will I visit all your iniquities upon you*, 2
while in the New Testament to a Church that fails to fulfil the
obligations laid upon it comes the word: 'I will spew thee out of
my mouth'. 3 In the Old Testament the Servant of the Lord is
elect from the womb, 4 but elect to shame and suffering, 6 and not
to be the pampered of the Lord. In the New Testament Christ is
elect, 6 but elect to a service that brings Him to the Cross. 7 The
measure of the privilege and honour of the election is but the
measure of the task it brings, and even of the suffering it entails.
It is always election to do the will of God.

Stated in those terms the thought of the Bible is constant. Yet
when we ask what is meant by the will of God we find develop-
ment. Here once more we find a growing richness in the content
of the constant terms, and must remember that historical sense
whose importance has been earlier underlined. The duty of all
men is to obey the will of God; the duty of God's elect is to obey
His will. Reduced to these colourless terms, the teaching of the
Bible is on a flat level, and elect and non-elect stand side by side.
It is when we ask what is the will of God that the elect are
distinguished, and the teaching of the Bible reveals diversity of
level.

Every religion demands that men shall obey the will of its gods.

1 Cf. Rom. xi. 13 flf. 2 Amos Hi. 2. 8 Rev. iii. 16.

4 Isa. xJix. I, B Isa. 1 6, liii. 5.

8 Matt. xii. 18. 7 Mark x. 45.

78

GOD AND MAN

What is characteristic of Biblical religion is that God's demands
spring out of His character, and that the measure in which man
through fellowship is lifted into the very Being of God is the
measure of His demand. God made man in His own image, and
His essential law for man is that he shall reflect the image of God
and become like Him in character. This was not perceived at first
in all its clarity; neither was the character of God seen in all its
fullness. In the wilderness loyalty to the Covenant was asked of
Israel; but this was not simply because God laid the obligation
of loyalty upon her. It was because He Who had initiated the
Covenant in grace pledged His loyalty to it that hers was claimed.
However loyal to it she might be, her loyalty would be but the
reflection of His.

We have already seen that in that age it was perceived that God
was compassionate and saving, not so much because these were
abstract ideas about Him enunciated by Moses, as because they
were deeply embedded in the experiences through which Israel
had been brought. God's hatred of oppression and inhumanity
had been declared in His acts, and not in His words alone.
Through all the teaching of the eighth and seventh century
prophets deeper insight into the character of God was given, and
the corollaries of that character were underlined. Here Israel was
taught that it is not enough for man to respond to God's goodness
with gratitude; he must reflect in his dealings with his fellow man
the same spirit that God had shown towards Israel. This already
begins to appear in the Decalogue, where the demand is made
that Israel's loyalty to the Covenant should be shown not only in
devotion of spirit to God, but in fundamental loyalty to one
another. Loyalty to parents, and loyalty to one's neighbour
expressing itself in counting sacred his life, his wife, his property
and his reputation and the cultivation of a loyalty of spirit as
well as of act, provide the terms wherein loyalty to God can be
expressed. When the prophets looked on the heart of God they
saw His character more clearly, and in the light of that vision
they perceived more fully what He asks of men. It is because God
is inflexibly just that He hated all the injustice that was rampant

79

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

in Israel, where every man was trying to get the better of his
fellows and all means were counted good enough to achieve his
end. When Amos looked around and saw men cheating in
trade, 1 exploiting the misfortunes of others, 2 fouling the stream
of justice with bribes, 3 even while they maintained with splendour
the forms of religion, 4 he saw these things as one who had been
lifted into the heart of God, and who saw all with the eyes of
God. It was because of what God was that He must hate all this,
and because this was the very antithesis of His justice that men
who practised such things could not reflect His will. To reflect
the heart of God and to reflect His will were one and the same,
and since God is just all who worship Him acceptably must be just.

With each fresh insight into the heart of God, and each fresh
emphasis in the conception of God, we find the same thing. It is
the moral holiness of God which makes Isaiah conscious of the
uncleanness of his own heart, 5 and makes him realize that these
two cannot exist together. To live in that presence he must
become pure; yet to purify himself is beyond his power. Only
by the God-sent touch could he be cleansed, and the moral purity
of God invade his very soul. What God is seen to be His people
must become.

Here, as everywhere throughout the Bible, we see that revel-
ation is given in the particular, yet transcends the particular.
Through the historical experience of the Exodus and all associated
with it there was given an enduringly valid revelation of the
character of God. Through all the moral and social and political
conditions of the eighth and seventh centuries there was given
an insight into the character and will of God that was true for
Israel, and that is just as true for men today. Some things must be
translated into the terms of our modern life, and in another
generation will call for retranslation into other terms; but
fundamentally the message stands. It is a message about God;
it is a message about man and his duty; it is also a message about
the nature of religion.

1 Amos Tiii 5 s Amos ii. 8, iv. i. * Amos v. 12.

* Amos v. 21 ff. B Isa. vi. 3, 5.

80

GOD AND MAN

Religion is never conceived of as mere belief about God or
mere ritual. This does not mean that ritual and belief were
treated as negligible. So far as belief is concerned, if duty is
defined in terms of the reflection of God's character, belief about
Him is clearly of great importance. But a man's real belief is not
that which his lips express; it is that whereby he lives. Similarly
the ritual that has meaning is not that which is performed as a
mere act, but that which is invested with his spirit and made the
vehicle of his approach to God. 1 When his sacrifice has meaning
he presents himself with it to God in humble surrender. Then,
and then alone, is it charged with power to bless, enrich, and
purify him. This means that his religion may come to a focus in
the shrine, but it is not confined to the shrine. It belongs to all
his life, and must express itself in every side of his experience.
It sends him forth from the shrine filled with the spirit of God
to reveal that spirit in all the relationships of his life. He will be
merciful, gracious, and pure in all his life, and in so far as he fails
will be filled with penitence and will repair to God that he may
be renewed in spirit. Religion is not reduced to ethics. It is ethical
religion because it expresses itself in ethical living, but it is
religion because it springs from an experience of God and
devotion to Him.

When in the New Testament we find the essence of the Old
Testament law summarized in two of its provisions, it is made
clear that they are set before the follower of Christ as valid for
him no less than for the children of the old Covenant. 2 These two
laws are: 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God', and 'Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself*. The love of God, if it is to be the
love of the God Who is revealed in theBible, must issue in the love
of man, because God loves man, and he who is lifted into the life
of God must share that love. The love of man, if it is to be a true
love expressing itself in loyalty and service, must arise from the
love of God, Who is the only source of man's true life.

In the modern world we are much concerned with the problem

1 Cf. what the writer has said on the essence of religion in the teaching of Jesus, in
An Outline of the Teaching of Jesus, 1945, pp. 31 ft 2 Mark xii. 28 F.

81

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the relation of the individual to the state, and various forms of
totalitarianism have appeared. On these the Bible speaks with no
uncertain voice. Man's first allegiance is to God and not to the
state. When Micaiah is urged to say the word that will be
welcome in the king's ear, he replies: 'What the Lord saith unto
me, that will I speak'. 1 When Peter and John are charged not to
teach in the name of Jesus, they reply: 'We must obey God
rather than men'. 2 Neither in the Old Testament nor in the New
is it taught that man is merely an individual, owing no more
loyalty to the state than he cares to concede. It is recognized that
the corporate body to which he belongs has a real claim on him,
yet not an absolute claim. He has rights which none can legiti-
mately infringe, and though they may be successfully infringed
that success is the mark of disease in the life of the state. As to the
basis of his rights, the Bible is equally clear. It is not because the
state has granted them to him inalienably, or because he has
fought and won them and in vigilance guards them, but because
God has willed them for him. When Solomon's state pressed
ruthlessly on men with its harsh demands it was prophets, acting
in the name of God, who initiated the consequent Disruption. 3
When the powers of the state were used by Jezebel to eliminate
Naboth and to give to Ahab the coveted vineyard, it was a
prophet who declared that this was not merely an offence against
Naboth's rights, but an offence against God. 4 The idea that might
is right, and that the powerful state is entitled to bend to its will its
weaker neighbours, is under divine condemnation in God's indig-
nation against Egypt and deliverance of Israel, and in the vigorous
condemnation by Amos and other prophets of those who
oppressed and treated with inhumanity their weaker neighbours. 5
Everywhere we are brought back to the will of God as the only
secure basis of life and liberty. Similarly, when the prophets
denounce the social evils of their day, and all the harshness of the
strong to the weak, it is not in the name of custom or constitution
that they speak, but in the name of God. Every crime of man

1 1 Kings xxii. 14. 2 Acts v. 29. 3 I Kings xi. 29 flf., xii. 22 ff.

4 i Kings xxi. 17 flf. 5 Cf. Amos i. 3 f

82

GOD AND MAN

against man is a sin against God. For whatever contravenes the
will of God is sin.

To embark on a survey of the Biblical teaching on sin is
impossible here. That we should find much variety of level is
certain. We have already noted the large place that purely ritual
offences and even involuntary acts have in the Law, and these
should not be placed on the same level as moral offences. There
are passages where old and primitive ideas which became trans-
cended are expressed. 1 This is in no way surprising if we preserve
that historical sense to which reference has been made. For while
it is always seen that the will of God is man's law, there was
development in the understanding of that will. But at every
level it is seen that disobedience to God's will curses the dis-
obedient. In the Garden of Eden Adam was disobedient, and his
disobedience cut him off from the fellowship of God. It pained
God; but it cursed man. Wherever men repudiated the will of
God they could no longer walk with Him, and the true source
of their life failed them. Their health was therefore forfeited and
their life threatened. In the life of the state the same thing hap-
pened. When Israel did not walk in the way of God she went
astray to her own hurt. Disaster threatened her life, and the
prophets announced the disaster because they saw men treading
the road that led to it. It is true that the social injustice rampant
in Israel could not be related to the Assyrian onslaught as cause
and effect in any mechanical way. But it is not true that the
prophets saw the trouble that was coming merely because they
were men of keener political insight, who could measure the
strength of nations more objectively than their blinded contem-
poraries. They perceived that the social injustice meant that
Israel's life was not directed by the spirit of God. It was a symptom
of disease, and that disease must affect all its life. The nation that

1 Cf. W. A. Irwin, The Old Testament, Keystone of Human Culture, 1952, p. 4: 'Israel's
intellectual life bridges two worlds. Her primitivism is apparent, perhaps the most striking
feature brought into relief by the critical studies of the last hundred years. ... It is
clear that the founders of the Hebrew nation and their heirs and successors for many
generations brought with them and continued to live in the pervasive thought-life of
the world of their times.*

83

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

walked by its own wisdom could not walk wisely in international
affairs, when its internal life showed that it was not directed by
the Spirit of God. Therefore it was not merely because a loving
God must punish Israel for her defection in order to bring her to
her senses and renew His claim upon her that disaster would come
upon her. The prophets might so express it, in order to point the
lesson of the trouble that was coining. But it was coming because
Israel insisted on taking the way that led to it. The prophets were
men who saw through the issues of their day to the ends towards
which they must inevitably lead, because they saw all in the light
of God's presence. They saw with clearness that the life of men
and nations proceeds from the spirit, and that when the spirit is
wrong the wrongness will manifest itself in every aspect of the
life. They saw, moreover, that when men or nations sought to
build their life on any foundation other than the will of God,
springing out of true devotion to Him, they built on false
foundations which must crumble beneath them.

In the New Testament we find some reflections of the same
teaching, though in forms that are characteristic of itself. John
the Baptist summoned all classes to a new righteousness and saw
the ills of society as symptomatic of its sickness and portents of
trouble. He saw the axe laid to the root of the trees, 1 the winnow-
ing fan in the hand of God, and the consuming fire about to burn
up the chaff. 2 On the individual side, Jesus could express the truth
uttered by the prophets by saying that a tree and its fruits belong
together, 3 and that out of the abundance of the heart a man's
words proceed. 4 His life issues from his spirit, and is of a piece.
If his spirit is not drawn from the Spirit of God, its evil effects
will be seen in all his life.

The contrary of all this is insisted on everywhere. In doing the
will of God is man's well-being. His obedience not alone delights
,the heart of God; it ministers to his own health. Similarly, when
the life of the state is in fundamental harmony with the will of
God, it treads the path of wisdom and finds blessing. In the book
of Deuteronomy this is especially insisted on, and vividly do we

1 Matt. iii. 10. 2 Matt. iii. 12. * Matt. vii. 16 ff. 4 Luke vi. 45.

84

GOD AND MAN

find depicted the blessings that obedience must bring to the state
and the curses that disobedience must entail. 1 In this there is a
measure of truth; yet it is not the whole truth. The individual
who is well-pleasing to God does not always find prosperity and
ease. Abel was well-pleasing to God, but was murdered. 2 Micaiah
for his loyalty was cast into prison, 3 and Jeremiah for his was
continually in bitter suffering. 4 Psalmists frequently lament that
the righteous are afflicted, and the book of Job is a sustained
protest against the idea that desert and fortune are so closely
linked that desert can be deduced from fortune. Nowhere in the
Bible is the easy doctrine taught that the good are always the
fortunate, in the sense that their material well-being is always
abundant. Nevertheless, it is always perceived that in a deeper
sense their well-being is always secure. For on a truer view that
well-being lies in the inner experience of God and not in material
things. With all his suffering Jeremiah is more to be envied than
all his contemporaries; for he was honoured of God beyond them
all. Similarly Job, who cried out so often against his suffering,
ended by resting in God even in his suffering, and in realizing
that he had found a richer revelation of God in his misery than
he had known before, so that it had actually ministered to his
truest well-being. 5 In the New Testament we find the same thing
with the Apostle Paul, who cried to God to deliver him from his
thorn in the flesh, but who instead of being delivered was given
such an experience of the grace of Christ that he could even thank
God for the suffering. 6 In both Testaments it is perceived that the
true well-being of man lies in a right relationship with God, and
that without obedience to God he cannot know that relationship.
So far as the state is concerned, the Bible sets one important
qualification on the thought that its righteousness will always
bring prosperity. It recognizes that the final well-being of any
is dependent on the well-being of all. That final well-being is
expressed in terms of the Golden Age, when life shall be incom-
parably glorious and absolute righteousness shall everywhere

1 Deut xxviii. a Gen. iv. 4, 8. 8 I Kings xxii. 27.

* Cf. e.g., Jer. xxxviii. 4 ffl * Job xlii. 5 6 2 Cor. xu. 8 ff.

85

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

prevail. That is why the Bible never speaks of the Golden Age,
but in terms of the Kingdom of God. All its pictures of that age
are drawn in terms of universalism. This is not the expression of
Jewish nationalism, but of religious realism. Just as man's indi-
viduality and sociality are held together, so it is realized that the
single nation is part of the larger society of nations. We sometimes
suppose that this is a modern notion. Yet it is found in the Bible,
which clearly recognizes that the final well-being of all peoples
belongs together. Its basis is to be found not in human agreement,
as we so often suppose, but in the will of God, and it is not
supposed that the peoples will stumble by chance into the way
of that will by trial and error, but only that they will find it when
in their heart they seek Him and surrender themselves to His will. 1
When the Bible talks of nations beating their swords into plough-
shares and their spears into pruning-hooks, it does not say that
this will happen -when they learn common sense, but when they
go up to the house of the Lord and seek to know His will. 2 The
Golden Age is none other than, the Kingdom of God, and without
God it cannot be.

It is widely held today that this thought of the Golden Age, and
of its conditions and character, has its roots much farther back
than was formerly believed. 3 There is no longer the same readiness
to assume that all the passages which contain references to it must
be late, 4 though it is certain that there are late passages in which

1 Cf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, Chapter xt. 2 Isa. u. 3 ; Mic. iv. 2 f.

3 C S. Mowinckd, Psalmenstudien II. Das Thronbesteigungsfest Jahwas und der Ursprung
der Eschatologie, 192,2 and Han som kommer, 1951; A. R. Johnson, The R61e of the King
in the Jerusalem Coitus*, in The Labyrinth, ed. by S. H. Hooke, 1935, pp. 73 ff.; I. Engnell,
'Messias', SJB.U., ii, 1952, cols. 245 #*, W. Eichrodt, Theologie des Alien Testaments, i,
3rd ed., 1948, pp. 252 ff. Cf. also "W. C. Graham and H. G. May, Culture and Conscience,
I93<S, p. 102: 'In whatever particulars it may differ from this earlier messianism,' i.e. of
the Palestinian city states *that which is reflected so prominently in the Old Testament
is a lineal descendant from it'; J. Morgenstern, Amos Studies, i, 1941, pp. 408 f. (=
H.U.C.A., xv, 1940, pp. 284 f.): "The roots of the concept of the Day of Yahweh were
not new in any sense. They were embedded in the observance of the day of the fall equinox
as the New Year's Day and in its ritual in Solomon's new Temple in Jerusalem.' Cf. also
G. Pidoux, Le Dieu aui vient, 1947, pp. 49 ff., and J. Bright, Interpretation, v, 1951, pp. 9 ff.
S. B. Frost, Old Testament Apocalyptic: its Origin and Growth, 1952, pp. 32 ff., gives a
critical review of this line of modern study; so, more briefly, G. W. Anderson, The Old
Testament and Modern Study, ed. by H. H. Rowley, 1952, pp. 304 ff

4 It may be noted, e.g. that whereas many scholars have rejected Isa. ii. 2 ff., ix. 2 ff.
(Heb. i ff.), xi. i ff., as late and inauthentic (so, most recently, S. B. Frost, Old Testament

86

GOD AND MAN

the thought was developed, and that the eschatological element
in prophecy was the seed of apocalyptic. In the period between
the Testaments apocalyptic flourished in some Jewish circles, 1
and in the New Testament we have eschatological and apocalyptic
passages, and a whole apocalyptic book. The Kingdom of God is

Apocalyptic, 1952, p. 68, where the second and third of these passages are so rejected), a
much larger number than is commonly recognized have allowed them to be from the
period of Isaiah. So far as the first passage is concerned, since this is also ascribed to Micah
we cannot be certain whether its author is Isaiah or Micah or a third writer, but the fact
that both of the prophets to whom it is ascribed were contemporaries strengthens the
probability that the tradition of its age has been rightly preserved. C H. H. Rowley,
The Biblical Doctrine of "Election, p. 64, and J. Steinmann, Le prophete Isafe, 1950, p. 129.
Of "writers who have ascribed this oracle either to T<aiah or to Micah or to an even earlier
prophet, the following list of scholars of widely differing approach, while it could easily
be largely added to, may suffice: B. Duhm (Das Buchjesaia (HX.), 2nd ed., 1902, p. 14),
C. Cornill (Introduction to the Canonical Books of the Old Testament, E. Tr. by G. H. Box,
1907, pp. 269 f.), A. van Hoonacker (Les dottze Petits Prophetes (E.B.), 1908, p. 381),
G, H. Box (The Book of Isaiah, 1916, p. 31), E. Sellin (Introduction to the Old Testament,
E. Tr. by W. Montgomery, 1923, p. 132), H. Schmidt (Die grossen Propheten (S.A.T.),
2nd ed., 1923, p. 112 n.), J. Fischer (Das Buck Isaias (rLS.A.Tes.), i, 1937, p. 36), J. Lippl
and J. Theis (Die zwolf kleinen Propheten (H.S.A.Tes.), i, 1937, p. 200), E. J. Kissane
(The Book of Isaiah, i, 1941, p. 22), A. H. Edelkoort (De Christusverwachting in het Oude
Testament, 1941, pp. 194 *) I" Dennefeld (Les grands Proph&tes (La Sainte Bible, ed. by
A. Clamer, vii), 1946, p. s8a), J. Steinmann (op. dt. 9 pp. 128 ). Similarly the other
two above mentioned oracles have been accepted as genuine Isaianic utterances by the
following: B. Duhm (op. at., pp. 62 , 77), C. Cornill (op. cit., p. 271), G. W. Wade
(The Book of the Prophet Isaiah (W.C.), 1911, pp. 62 , 81 ), G. H. Box (op. cit. 9 pp.
54 , 67 ), E. Selhn (op. cit., p. 132), H. Schmidt (op. cit., pp. 114 fF.), O. Procksch
(Jesaia (K.A.T.), i, 1930, pp. 150 ), W. O. E. Oesterley andT. H. Robinson (Introduction
to the Books of the Old Testament, 1934, p. 245 Isa. ix. 1-6 only; c pp. 245 on Isa. xi.
i-9) O. Eissfeldt (Emleitung in das Alte Testament, 1934, pp. 357 where Isa, ix. i 6
is held to be probably Isaianic; c pp. 358 , where Isa, XL 1-9 is held to be probably
non-Isaianic), J. Fischer (op. cit., pp. 83 , 101), E. J. Kissane (op. tit., pp. 105, 133),
A. H. Edelkoort (op. cit., pp. 228 fF., 242 fL), L. Dennefeld (op. cit., pp. 5ob, 58b), J.
Steinmann (op. cit., pp. 125, 165 n.). J. Pedersen (Israel JZI-IK, 1940, p. 91) says: *It is
impossible to decide whether these utterances can really be ascribed to Tsaian, but it is
highly probable that they date from the monarchical period*. C S. Mowmckel, Han
som kommer, 1951, pp. 22, 73 fF. A. C. "Welch, Kings and Prophets of Israel, 1952, p. 250,
says: *There is nothing to prevent the oracles from being dated in the period of our
prophet. What prompts men to relegate them to a post-exilic period is not, therefore, an
unbiased criticism, but a criticism biased by an a priori opinion as to Isaiah's general
position.' In writing of Isa. ix. 1-6, Oesterley and Robinson observe: 'It is impossible
to resist the feeling that scholars have been too much influenced by the idea that Messianic
prophecy is necessarily late* (op. at., p. 245). C A. Bentzen: 'Often this* i.e. the ascrip-
tion of Messianic prophecies to post-exilic times *was due to the dominant idea of the
pre-exilic prophets being exclusively prophets of doom* (Introduction to the Old Testament,
ii 1949, p- 108). A. Alt, in Festschrift Alfred Beriholet, 1950, pp. 29 C, has recently argued
for Isaianic authorship, probably in 732 B.C., for Isa. viiL 23-ix. 6. H. L. Ginsberg, on
the other hand, in Alexander Marx Jubilee Volume, 1950, pp. 357 &* transfers ix. 1-6 to
the time of Josiah.
1 C the present writer's Relevance of Apocalyptic, 2nd ed., 1947.

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

familiar New Testament phrase as well as an Old Testament
concept. Its basis is always obedience to God, but an obedience
that goes beyond the outward act to the inner source in the
heart's relation to God. There is, however, here as so often a
further development. Deutero-Isaiah realized that the Golden
Age must be more than a hope; it must be an inspiration and a
challenge to service. Israel must not wait until the nations rose
of themselves to seek the Lord. She must carry through all the
world in a mission of service the revelation which had been made
to her. The book of Jonah finds its glory in the presentation of the
same message. Nor was this wholly unheeded teaching. For
though Judaism did not send out missionaries in the modern sense,
many of the Jews of the Diaspora -were effective missionaries, and
large numbers of proselytes accepted the faith of Israel. 1 In the
New Testament we find that the message of Deutero-Isaiah and
Jonah is taken with even greater seriousness, and Paul and
Barnabas are set apart for the specific task of spreading the faith
of the New Israel. 2 To the Jews and their converts this message
was first carried, but then to the Gentiles outside, and men were
sought with a new energy and passion in the effort to claim all men
for the Kingdom of God.

In not a few respects, then, we can find strands of unity running
through the Old Testament, and occasionally we have traced
them on into the New. The real bond of unity between the
Testaments, however, is not to be found in the repetition of the
message of the Old in the New, or even in the continuation of the
tasks of Israel by the Christian Church. The message of the Old
Testament is more often assumed and taken for granted than
restated, and though much more could be added along the lines
here adumbrated, the real foundation of the case for the unity of
the two Testaments is other. Within the Old Testament, great
though the span of time it covers may be, there are these manifest
threads running through and uniting the whole, even though
there is also much that is primitive and superseded before the end

1 C The Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. 90 flf.
* Acts. xiiL a

88

GOD AND MAN

of the journey is reached, much that comes from the distant past
and that was shared with other peoples. The unity of the Old
Testament is to be found in those things that were mediated to
her through her own experience, and in such older and alien
inheritance as she integrated into her faith and made its vehicle.
The things she shed, or carried as fossils, are not fundamental to
the faith of the Old Testament, though they must have their
place in a history of the religion of Israel. For our present purpose
the historical outlook can dispense with them, since they do not
represent moments in the development of the message of the
Bible. It is their supersession, or fading away, that is more
significant here, since it was in their supersession that the inner
dynamic of Israel's faith was seen. 1

It would be wholly wrong to suggest, however, that the New
Testament offers merely a development of Old Testament
religion. Throughout the period covered by the Old Testament
a thread of unity can be found, and much in the thought of the
Old Testament is continued in the New. There is, on the other
hand, a further sloughing of other elements of Old Testament
teaching and practice, comparable with the sloughing that has
just been noticed during the centuries covered by the Old
Testament. The most significant bond of unity between the two
Testaments, however, is not to be found in the continuity of
development, but in the fundamental differences between the
Testaments. To this paradox we must next turn.

1 What is here in mind is such practices as blood revenge and levirate marriage. Both
of these came out of a wider than Israelite background, and both came under limitation
in Israel in the Old Testament period. Cf. the writer's The Servant of the Lord, 1952,
pp. 169 F. The genius of Israel's faith is seen in the limitation of this inheritance from the
ancient past.

IV
THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

IN the three preceding chapters we have looked at some aspects
of the unity of the Old Testament in particular, though our
thought has sometimes passed over to the New. It has throughout
been insisted that unity does not mean uniformity, and that great
diversity has also to be recognized within the compass of the Old
Testament. All its parts are not on the same level of importance
or of grandeur. Nevertheless, there are principles and ideas
running through the whole, principles and ideas whose applica-
tion would be differently pressed by different writers or spokes-
men, yet still giving a real measure of unity to it all.

We come now to the bond that unites the two Testaments in
the very act of distinguishing most clearly between them. This is
not really so paradoxical as it may sound. In daily life we find
a bond of unity between things which are antithetical to one
another. Debtor and creditor are at opposite poles, yet they
belong together, and the amount by which one is debtor is
identical with the amount by which the other is creditor. There
is promise which demands fulfilment, though it does not always
find it. While the relation between the Testaments is quite other
than this, of course, it is none the less the case here that the bond
between them is consistent with wide differences between them.
Again there is promise, which not alone calls for fulfilment, but
finds it. Few things are more dangerous than the equation of the
two Testaments, or the identification of the teaching of both. Jew
and Christian alike recognize the differences, and though some
teachings are continued from the Old into the New Testament,
and there are fundamental ideas of God and man which belong
to the teaching of both Testaments, there is also much in the Old
which no longer belongs to the New. Nevertheless, the one

90

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

belongs indivisibly to the other. 1 The New is neither a merely
natural development from the Old, nor the substitution of
something unrelated.

The Old Testament has always belonged to the Bible of the
Church. Already by the beginning of the Christian era the Jews
had a collection of sacred books, divided into three parts, 2 and
the New Testament provides us with evidence that Chronicles
was the final book of that collection, 3 as it is still in the Hebrew
Canon. At the end of the first century A.D. there were still
discussions amongst the Rabbis as to whether certain books of
the Old Testament were rightly included in the collection, or
should be rejected; but it is clear that they were not discussing
the question ab initio. Already the disputed works had such a
hold in the veneration of men that the scales were heavily
weighted in favour of their reception as sacred. We may therefore
say that though no rigid and binding decisions had been formally
taken by the time of our Lord or for that matter were even
taken at the end of the century for all practical purposes the
Palestinian Jewish Canon was achieved by the beginning of our
era.

There were certain other books, of Jewish origin, which were
cherished in some circles. 4 There is no evidence that they were

1 C H. F. D. Sparks, The Old Testament in the Christian Church, 1944, p. 93: 'However
much, we may dislike it, and by whatever means we may seek to evade it, we are con-
fronted always by a single incontrovertible, historic fact the Old Testament and
Christianity are inextricably woven together/

2 The Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament is divided into the Law, the Prophets,
and the Writings. The first includes the Pentateuch, the second the historical books
Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings, together with the four prophetical books, Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets, "while the third includes
the remaining books of the Old Testament, i.e. Psalms, Job, Proverbs, the five Rolls
(Ruth, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations and Esther), Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah,
Chronicles. Luke xxiv. 44 refers to a threefold division of the sacred books, called here
Law, Prophets and Psalms.

8 Luke xi. 51 says 'from the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zechariah, who perished
between the altar and the sanctuary*. The latter reference must be to 2 Chron. xxiv. 20 f ,
which tells of the death of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada. Matt, raiii. 35 wrongly says
Zechariah was the son of Berechiah, by confusion with the prophet Zechariah (cf,
Zech. i. i). The Gospel reference is to be understood to be to every murder recorded in
the Jewish Bible from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, i.e. from beginning to end.

4 These are printed in the Apocrypha in our Bibles. The word Apocrypha has a
different connotation in Roman Catholic and in Protestant works. Since the books re-
ferred to are part of the Roman Canon, the term Apocrypha is reserved in Roman

91

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

ever accepted by the Jews as a whole as on a comparable level
with the books of the Hebrew Old Testament, though some of
them were originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Neverthe-
less early in the Christian era these books were valued by many
Jews, particularly in Greek speaking circles, for whose benefit
they had been translated into Greek if they had not been composed
in that language. From the Jews these books passed into the hands
of Christians, who continued to value and use them after the
Jews had ceased to be interested in them. Some of them are found
in the great codices of the Bible which were copied for Christian
use. Yet there was no uniform standard in this matter, and the
codices are not in complete agreement in their choice of these
works for inclusion, or in the order in which they placed them.
It was only gradually that they secured their general acceptance
in the Christian Bible, though powerful voices were raised
against their recognition as fully canonical. 1 We may therefore
leave these works out of our purview, since there is no evidence
that they belonged to the Bible of the Jews in Palestine in the
time of our Lord, or formed part of the sacred heritage which
the Church took over from the Jews from its very inception. Of
the importance and usefulness of these books for many purposes
there is little doubt, but at no time do they appear to have been
universally recognized as canonical throughout the Christian
Church. Their canonicity was declared by the Council of Trent,
and they are recognized as canonical by the Roman Catholic
Church, though even there individuals have since expressed their

Catholic works for those books which Protestant writers include under the not very
satisfactory term Pseudepigrapha. The Prayer of Manasseh, i Esdras, and 2 Esdras, are
printed in the Appendix to the Roman Bible, where they stand after tie New Testament
and are called Apocrypha. It is only for these three books, therefore, that the word
Apocrypha has a common meaning for Catholics and Protestants.

1 Jerome, in the Prologus Galcatus, declares the books not found in the Hebrew Canon
to be apocryphal (c H. Howorth, J.T.S., x, 1908-09, pp. 481 flf., xi. 1909-10, pp. 321 flf.,
and L. Schade, Die Inspirationslehre des heiligen Hieronymus, 1910, pp. 158 f). Rufinus
similarly observed that these books *non canonici, sed Ecclesiastici a majonbus appellati
sunt* (cf. Migne, PX., xxi, 1878, coL 374), but later abandoned this view (cf. Howorth,
J.T.S., xi, 1909-10, pp. 342 flf., xiii, 1912, pp. i flf.). Hilary of Poitiers also appears to
recognize only the Hebrew Canon (cf. P.L., ix, 1844, col. 241); but cf. Howorth, J.T.S.,
xi, 1909-10, pp. 324 f.

92

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

doubts about them. 1 The Protestant Churches adopt varying
attitudes towards them, some accepting them as profitable for
edification though not canonical, and others adopting a more
negative attitude to them by simply rejecting them. 2

So far as the books of the Jewish Old Testament Canon are
concerned, these were accepted as sacred by the Christians from
the start. The New Testament makes constant appeal to them,
and takes for granted their authority in such a way that it is not
intelligible without reference to the Old. It is true that not every
book finds specific reference, but it has been said above that there
is a reference to the collection that ran from Genesis to Chronicles,
and that doubtless then included all that is now in the Hebrew
Canon. There is no evidence of Christian rejection of any of them,
and, as has been said, the New Testament cannot be understood
without the Old, to which it so frequently alludes. 3

This does not of itself mean that the two Testaments belong
together. Milton's Paradise Lost is so full of allusions to classical
mythology that it is unintelligible without some knowledge of
that mythology. We need, therefore, to consider in what respects
the New Testament allusions to the Old differ from these in

1 So Sixtus of Sienna (cf. Bibliotheca Sancta, 1586 ed., pp. I ), Robert Bellarmine
[cf. De Verbo Dei I, iv (Disputationes de Controversiis Chnstianae Fidei, i, 1613, cols 9 )],
B. Lamy [cf. Apparatus Bibhcus, n, iv (E. Tr., 1723, pp. 292 ff.)], J. Jahn (c Introducth
in libros sacros Veteris Foederis, 2nd ed., 1814, pp. 45 )

2 Luther in 1534 declared that "These are books not to be held in equal esteem with
those of Holy Scripture, but yet good and useful for reading* (cf. F. Buhl, Canon and
Text of the Old Testament, E. Tr. by J. MacPherson, 1892, p. 6*7). Similarly the Church
of England in its Sixth Article states that these are books which 'the Church doth read
for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish
any doctrine*. On the other hand the Westminster Confession says 'The books commonly
called Apocrypha not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of the
Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be in any
other wise approved or made use of, than other human writings* (cf. H. H. Howorth,
J.T.S., vii, 1906-07, pp. 35 ). Apparently Tyndale accepted Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom
for use in public worship (ibid. p. 4), though he separated Hebrews, James and Jude
from the other books of the New Testament (ibid.), following Luther (ibid., pp. 353 ff.)-
On the history of the Canon cf. S. M. Zarb, De historia Canonts Utriusque Testamenti,
2nd ed,, 1934; also a series of articles by H. H. Howorth in J.T.S., viii-xi, xfii, 1906-12,
F. Buhl, op. cit., pp. I f, and L. Dennefeld, Introduction a VAncien Testament, 1935, pp.
195 fil; in addition, on the attitude to the Apocrypha, cf. W. O. E. Oesterley, An Intro-
duction to the Books of the Apocrypha, 1935, pp. 121 f

3 Cf. A. J. B. Higgins, The Christian Significance of the Old Testament, 1949, p. 123,
says of the Old Testament: 'It is still a part of the Word of God which is the Bible, for it,
too, records the divine revelation and the divine message of salvation.*

93

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

fundamental character. Do they figure here just because the
writers were familiar with the literature of the Old Testament,
since it was the best-known literature of the world in which they
moved? Was it just by the accident of the time and place of the
birth of the Church that the Old Testament was taken over and
these references made? The writer has heard such a view main-
tained, and some have suggested that it would be better for
Chinese Christians to substitute the Chinese Classics for the
Old Testament in their Bibles and for Indian Christians to
substitute the sacred texts of Hinduism. This would still leave the
New Testament allusions to the Old Testament unintelligible,
apart from more serious objections. For the relation of the New-
Testament to the Old is not that of Paradise Lost to the literature
of Greece and Rome. There is a fundamental unity, so that with
all their diversity they belong so intimately together that the
New Testament cannot be understood without the Old, and
neither can the Old Testament "be fully understood without the New.
If this contention is sound, the difference between the case of
Milton and Classical Mythology is at once clear; for no one
would suppose that Classical Mythology could not be fully
understood without the study of Milton.

It is by now obvious that it is here proposed to differentiate
between the relation of the Old Testament to the New and its
relation to Judaism and its literature. That Judaism is a develop-
ment from the religion of the Old Testament is undeniable.
Its literature abounds in references to the text of the Old Testa-
ment, and it always accepts it as authoritative and sacred. While
post-Biblical Judaism is completely unintelligible without the
Old Testament, however, it is not the case that die Old Testament
is unintelligible without post-Biblical Judaism, whereas it is
claimed that the Old Testament is not fully intelligible without
the New Testament. For if the New Testament looks back to the
Old which preceded it, the Old looks forward to something which
should follow it, and that something is not post-Biblical Judaism.

We sometimes find a group of languages that have developed
from a single language, known or assumed. Though the languages

94

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

of the group are today distinct, each is a development along its
own line from the parent language. Post-Biblical Judaism
developed in that kind of way from the Judaism of the post-
exilic period. But Christianity did not develop in that kind of
way from early Judaism. The relation of Christianity to the
religion of the Old Testament is quite different from that of
post-Biblical Judaism to it.

The Old Testament continually looks forward to something
beyond itself; the New Testament continually looks back to the
Old. Neither is complete without something beyond itself. How
far this interlocking of the Testaments can be pressed we shall
have to examine. First, however, we may notice that there is
nothing of this kind in the case of Judaism. The promise set forth
in the Old Testament is not fulfilled in Judaism, which is a
development out of the Old Testament and not the response to
its hopes. In the Old Testament we find the hope of the Golden
Age, in which people of every race should worship Israel's God
and learn His law, 1 acknowledging as the head of the Kingdom
of God amongst men the Davidic leader who would arise. 2 In
no sense is this realized in Judaism. It is true that Judaism still
cherishes the hope of the coming of the Messiah and the establish-
ment of the Golden Age of peace and concord amongst men, 3
though some sections of it have shed the messianic hope. 4 Where
this hope is retained, Judaism places the response to the expec-
tations of the Old Testament still in the future, and does not even
claim to be itself that response. Its claim is that it maintains the
faith of the Old Testament, and is loyal to the heritage of Moses
and the prophets. Yet in one great and important matter it does

1 Cf. Isa. ii. 2-4; Mic. iv. 1-3.

2 C Isa. ix. 2 ff. (Heb. I flf.), xL I flf.; Mic. v. 2 flf. (Heb. r flf.); Jer. xxiii. 5

3 Cf. J. H. Greenstone, The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, 1943, p- 276: 'The belief
in a personal Messiah, whose advent is to be accompanied by many miracles and wonders,
is still potent.*

4 In the third century Rabbi Hillel not the great HUlel said that no Messiah was
now to be expected, as he came in the days of Hezekiah. Cf. T.B. Sanhedrin 99a (ed.
Goldschmidt, vii, 1903, p. 431). On this passage cf. Joseph Albo, Sefer Ha-Ikharim (ed.
I. Husile), i, 1929, pp. 44 flf. C also L, Magnus, The Jews in the Christian Era, 1929, p.
397: There can be no more false Messiahs. . . . Pseudo-Messianism, as a force in Jewish
life, is spent and done.'

D* 95

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

not keep the law of Moses. That law prescribed animal sacrifices;
yet for nearly nineteen centimes Judaism has not offered them.
This is by sheer force of circumstances. It recognizes but one
sacred place as the legitimate centre for sacrifice, and since the
destruction of the Temple it has therefore had no legitimate
altar and has offered no sacrifices. It claims no new revelation
from God to dispense with the old law of sacrifice. The law
which it holds to have been given to Israel by divine revelation
is cancelled for nineteen centuries, not in response to the revealed
will of God through a prophetic leader, but by the hand of
drcumstance. Judaism neither continues to obey the old law nor
has it a new one, given to it with the same evident marks of the
activity of God as accompanied the giving of the old Law.

Let it be quite clear that the writer speaks of Judaism with
sympathy and respect. Of the loftiness of its teaching and of the
life of many of its spiritual leaders he is not unmindful. He is not
of those who depreciate the Judaism of the post-exilic period, or
of subsequent ages. He recognizes with gratitude the rich heritage
the Christian Church received from Judaism, and all that our
Lord and the early Christians owed to the mother faith from
whose womb the Church was born. Not in any spirit of hostility
or of controversy, but as a simple statement of fact it must be
observed that with all its cherishing of the high ethical values of
the Old Testament post-Biblical Judaism is an interlude that
neither continues to obey the law of Moses, nor yet offers in
itself the fulfilment of the hopes which the Old Testament holds
before men. It is an interlude that is worthy of high respect, and
marked by a noble spirit which calls for deep admiration.
Nevertheless, it is an interlude, in which the sacrificial element
that is of such importance in the thought and teaching of the
Old Testament is suspended, and Israel's task to win the world
to the worship of her God is also suspended. 1

It is when we turn from this to the New Testament and the

1 C C, G. Montefiore, The Old Testament and After, 1923, p. 455: 'Any sign of a desire
or of a duty to go out and seek proselytes soon became wanting'. On this cf. The Biblical
Doctrine of Election, pp. 89 fif.

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

Christian Church that we see how different is the relation, to the
Old. Here we find a new revelation from the same God Who
revealed Himself in the Old. In so far as there is modification of
the old law, therefore, it claims to rest on the revealed will of
God, and not merely on the relentless compulsion of circum-
stance. And the first thing we observe is that the basis of revelation
in the New Testament is the same as that in the Old. By this is
meant that the revelation is given in a combination of personal
and impersonal factors. It is given through a Person, yet it is
guaranteed by historical events which could not be controlled by
any impostor. If we rightly found this to be the evidence of the
hand of God in the Mosaic revelation, it is equally that evidence
here. Moreover, it is wholly consistent with the claim that the
same God is to be found in both that this same unique medium of
revelation should be again adopted.

It will be remembered that it has not been argued above that
the uniqueness of the Biblical revelation is to be found in its
mediation through history, or in its mediation through prophetic
personality. It is in the structure of the combination of both that
the uniqueness lies. Moses claimed that by Divine initiative he
was sent to deliver Israel. Though he promised deliverance
he could not effect it by human power, and it was not to the
achievement of freedom by Israel's own efforts that he summoned
them. It was to faith in his promise that he called them, and then
deliverance was achieved by forces beyond his and their control.
His promise was fulfilled by circumstances, and his claim to
have spoken in the name of God was vindicated in history. No
intelligent anticipation could offer the explanation, and the
vindicating circumstances can no more explain his prior faith and
promise than his prior faith and promise can explain the vindi-
cating circumstances.

In the New Testament we find that our Lord appears before
men with claims and promises. To examine them all is unneces-
sary. Suffice it to say that He believed that His work was of wide
and enduring importance to men, and that His death would be
of unique significance and power. If He was no more than a

97

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

village carpenter and His word arose from no deeper source
than His own heart, and if His claim that he delivered the word
of God Who had spoken through Moses was false, then there
could be no power in that word to effect its own fulfilment. Yet
it has undeniably been fulfilled, and whether we like it or not
the fact remains that His word has been of uniquely enduring
importance to men, and His death has proved the uniqueness of
its power in the experience of men. His confidence could not of
itself give power if it were falsely based, and it is quite impossible
to explain His confidence from its subsequent vindication. The
vindication was given in verifiable history, and there is precisely
the same evidence for the hand of God in this complex of person-
ality and event as there was in that of the period of the Exodus.

In finding the same pattern of revelation here and in the Old
Testament we are not resorting to typology, and arguing that
the old revelation was a foreshadowing of the new. That is far
from our thought here. The old revelation had a reality and a
validity in its own right. The new, too, had a validity and a
reality in its own right. If both were revelations of the same God,
as they claimed to be, then in the common pattern of the revela-
tion in personal and impersonal factors, where neither could
explain or control the other, we have the signature of God.

In many other ways we have similar patterns in the New-
Testament and the Old. Yet the new pattern is never a mere
repetition of the old. It is on a new level, or in terms of new
conditions, and it brings a new message and a new power. It
brings the evidence of the personality of the same God, Whose
initiative is never limited by His past revelation. The community
of pattern does not mean that all could have been predicted
beforehand, but that when the new pattern appears its community
with the old can be perceived. It is as the revelation unfolds itself
that the pattern becomes evident. For the divine signature is not
given merely through some human voice that claims to be
prophetic; it is given in the texture of the revelation. 1

1 G. E. Wright, Interpretation, v, 1951, p. 305, refers with approval to Klson*s rejection
of *the oversimplified attempts of those who find the basic unity in the Bible in terms

98

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

In the Old Testament we found that God chose Israel for
Himself in her weakness and need, and then delivered her. The
initiative in grace and compassion was wholly His, and through
it all His character as a gracious, compassionate, electing and
saving God was manifested. When Israel thereafter committed
herself to Him in the Covenant, her consecration to God was but
her response to the deliverance which He had already achieved,
and it was a consecration as absolute in its promise as the deliver-
ance she had experienced had been absolute. The bond between
Israel and God would never be broken from God's side; it might
be broken from Israel's. Here, again, we find the same pattern
in the New Testament. The divine initiative is taken in the
Person and Work of Christ. His grace and compassion for men
in a deeper need than the Egyptian bondage is manifested. The
pattern is lifted to a new level, indeed; nevertheless it is a pattern
of grace and compassion, and a pattern of election. For election
is as deeply written on the New Testament as on the Old.
Moreover, we have here not merely a message of grace and
compassion; we have an act of deliverance. Its instrument is the
Cross of Christ, which responds to Old Testament patterns in
ways at which we shall look later. But the power of the Cross is
the power of God, which by its means brings deliverance to men.
The New Covenant into which men then enter is the response
of gratitude to the deliverance which God has wrought in
Christ. It pledges them to an absolute and enduring loyalty. The
deliverance has been achieved and the response it demands is an
absolute consecration. The New Covenant which is sealed in this
consecration is one which is never to be broken by God, but
which men may violate by disloyalty. The new deliverance and
the New Covenant are in different terms from the old; yet the
pattern is still the same. No one could deduce it from the old, and
there cannot be the slightest suggestion that by the careful study

of certain patterns (for example, Phythian-Adams and Hebert)", and adds: *The primary
unity is to be found in the activity of the independent, sovereign God.' With this the
present -writer is in agreement. "While he recognizes recurring patterns, and looks beyond
them to God, he does not find the hand of God only in these patterns. These form but a
part of his argument, and are not to be seen out of relation to the whole.

99

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the Old Testament anyone could have "written the New
before its context of history took place. Nevertheless, the lines
of correspondence are impressive.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, to find the hand of God as
manifestly active here as in the events in which Moses figures, and
through both to find revelation which is authoritative because
its source is God. In the content of the revelation there is both
continuity and newness, as could only be expected. If the Old
Testament revelation was from God, then it could not be so
completely repudiated by the same God in a new revelation that
every element of the old was done away, and something wholly
new was put in its place. Accordingly we find that while in the
New Testament the old law is superseded, there is yet great
respect for the Law, and many of its principles and teachings are
carried forward. The fundamental character of God is still seen
to be the same. For if the New Testament thinks of God's relation
to men characteristically in terms of fatherhood, that is not alien
to the thought of the Old Testament, as has been said. Nor is
this merely a matter of the occasional use of the word Father in
relation to God in the Old Testament. There men were exhorted
to walk humbly with God, and it was perceived that power to
fulfil His demands could only arise from intimate fellowship
with Him.

The unity and onliness of God are never questioned in the New
Testament, and any supposition that the Christian doctrine of
the Trinity is inconsistent with the strictest monotheism rests on
misunderstanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the Old
Testament no less than in the New the Spirit of God is perceived
to be active in the human spirit. It can enter a man's personality
and give power and direction to his life and make him the
instrument of the divine will amongst men. And if the New
Testament can use the language of sonship of God in relation
to Jesus and others, such language is found also in the Old
Testament. That the Sonship of our Lord is held to be unique is,
of course, true; but if it is possible for others to become the sons
of God without challenge to monotheism, it is possible for One

100

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

to be 'the first-born of many brethren', 1 and in a special sense the
Son of God, without such challenge. In the wholeness of His
Person He is other than the Father; yet in so far as He is Divine
He is one with the Father, and not a second God. The Spirit of
God was uniquely in Him, so that His humanity was lifted into
perfect accord with the Father's will and became the vehicle
of divine activity amongst men in a way that transcends that of
all others who became the garment of God's spirit. There is here
no break with monotheism, and the seeds of all this thought are
to be found within the Old Testament.

It is sometimes suggested that the monotheism of Islam is too
rigid to allow of a doctrine of the Trinity. It is thus gentry implied
that in the Christian doctrine monotheism is somewhat loosely
held. The fact is that Christian monotheism is as completely
monotheistic as it is possible to be. Islamic monotheism has no
place for a doctrine of the Trinity, not because it is too rigid, but
because its God is too remote. It is not the fact of its monotheism
which provides an obstacle, but the nature of its conception of
God as a Being afar off, and whoEy other than man. In the
Biblical doctrine throughout God is both other than man and
akin to man, -making man in His own image and for His own
fellowship, and giving of His intimacy to him. Job can speak of
God as his next-oiin, 2 and Deutero-Isaiah can speak of Him as
the kinsman of Israel, 3 Who will not shrink from all the obliga-
tions that kinship lays upon Him.

In the whole conception of religion as man's response to God's
initiative in grace, the thought and teaching of the Old Testament

1 Rom. vuL 29.

2 Job xix. 25. The word rendered 'redeemer* means 'kinsman*, and is used especially
of the next-o-kin on whom the responsibilities of kinship particularly felL One of his
duties was to avenge a violent death, and Job boldly looks to God to take up his case when
death overtakes him.

3 Cf. Isa. xliii. i, xliv. 22 , xlvni. 20, Hi. 9. In all these passages verbal forms from a
root meaning fundamentally *to play the part of kinsman* are found. In addition there
are a number of passages where die participial form found in Job xix. 25 is found: Ia
xli. 14, xliii. 14, xliv. (5, 24, xlvii. 4, xlix. 7, 26, liv. 5, 8. In. Trito-Isaiah the verb is found
in Isa, Ixiu. 9, and the participle in Isa, lix. 20, Ix, 16, IxiiL 16. A passive participle, rendered
'redeemed*, and meaning fundamentally 'those who are given a kinsman's protection,
help, or vindication* is found in Deutero-Isaiah in Isa. li. 10, and elsewhere in Isa xxxv.
9, Ixii. 12, bdii. 4.

101

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

is continued in the New. That was the new conception of religion
which was mediated to Israel through Moses, and which succeed-
ing generations were slow to understand. Its bond was not an
inevitable one, but one willingly accepted. It began in constraint
laid upon man by the grace of God, but it was in the free response
to that constraint and in the freely pledged loyalty of the heart
that it was sealed. Such a conception of the nature of religion is
basic to the New Testament. It rests on a covenant relation, and
the basis of the Covenant is 'what God has done, while from man's
side it is the absolute committal of the self to Him in response.

All of this and much more might be regarded as a develop-
ment out of Old Testament teaching, similar in character though
different in form as compared with the development in post-
Biblical Judaism. Within the period covered by the Old Testament
there had been not a little development of die principles which
were incipient in Israel's religion from the start, and such develop-
ment as has been so far indicated could be regarded as a particular
stream of development without involving the conclusion that the
Old and New Testaments belong peculiarly together. It is when
we turn to some other matters that we find the most significant
evidence for the bond between the Testaments. For our Lord
not merely continued to validate for His followers much that is
in the Old Testament. He claimed that much was superseded in
the New Covenant. 'Ye have heard that it was said . . . But I
say unto you 5 are words that we hear on His lips. 1 Old commands
are modified or lifted to a new level, and an authority equal to
that of the old lawgiver is quietly assumed by Him. It is in the
supersession of the old that die bond with the old is particularly
to be found. This may seem to be patently absurd; but it is in
paradox that the deepest truth is commonly to be found.

For many of the supersessions of the old law which we find in
the Gospels there is no conflict with the principles of the Mosaic
law. "When our Lord supersedes the law of 'an eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth* by the law of love, the roots of the new
law are already found in the Old Testament. The Law had long

1 Matt, v. 21 , 27 , 33 , 38 , 43
102

THE FULFILMENT OP PROMISE

taught that man's first duty was to love God, 1 and that his next
duty was to love his neighbour. 2 The principle of the Golden
Rule was not first enunciated by our Lord, and it is not legitimate
to press the negative form in which it was stated by others as
against the positive form He used, in order to establish superiority. 3
With Him it was no mere abstract principle, but something that
He set before men in Himself, as well as in His word; and He
brought to men a spring of power that would enable them to
make it realizable in their experience. But as a principle its roots
lie already in the Old Testament, 4

So, too, when He taught that the avoidance of adultery was
insufficient, and that the deeper law of the avoidance of lust was
the divine law for man, He was merely giving a particular
application to what was already implicit in the tenth command-
ment. This penetrated beneath action to its root in desire. Much
as we cherish the teachings of Jesus, we should not see things of
this kind out of focus, and falsely represent the originality of His
teaching, or look in the Old Testament only for those things
which we can set as a foil to Christ's words.

Much more significant was His supersession of the old Law in
less direct ways. Here we may select a single example, but in a
matter of particular importance. Our Lord seems to have been
in the succession of the great pre-exilic prophets in his attitude
to the ritual forms of religion. Like them He was often found in
the Temple, and there is no reason to think that He opposed the

1 Deut. vi. 5.

2 Lev. xix. 1 8. It is true that Jesus gives a wider connotation to the word 'neighbour*
in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke x. 30 ff ), but He is nevertheless building on
the Old Testament passage which He is interpreting. In Matt, v. 43, Jesus says- 'Ye have
heard that it was said, Thou shalt . . . hate thine enemy". No specific command in
these terms stands in the Old Testament, though Deut. xxiii. 6 comes very close to it.
In extending the meaning of neighbour to include even a Samaritan, and hi positively
commanding men to love their enemies and to pray for their persecutors, Jesus is carrying
the principle of Lev. xix. 18 further rather than contradicting or rescinding die old Law.

3 C the writer's essay on 'The Chinese Sages and the Golden Rule', in Submission in
Suffering and other Essays, 1951, pp. 74 ff.

4 It had already been stated in the negative form 'Wnat thou thyself hatest, do to no
man* in Tob. iv. 15 (Vulg. 16), and by Hillel in the words *What is hateful to thee, do
not to thy neighbour; this is the whole Law, all else being but commentary" (T.B.
Shabbath sia, ed. Goldschmidt, i, 1897, p. 388).

103

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

whole Temple cultus root and branch, and regarded it as a thing
evil in itself, and always alien to the will of God. He sent cleansed
lepers to offer the prescribed sacrifices, 1 and clearly regarded the
sacrificial cultus as still binding on the Jews. Yet His followers,
even before the destruction of the Temple, had ceased to be
concerned with sacrifices, and for them all the forms of sacrifice
were superseded. Yet their indifference to the Temple ritual of
sacrifice rested on their regard for sacrifice.

In a previous chapter it has been observed that the deepest
word on sacrifice to be found in the Old Testament speaks of no
sacrifice that was offered in the Temple, but of the death of the
Servant of the Lord. The passage telling of this is not found in
the Law, but in the Prophets. 2 There the death of the Servant is
presented as a sacrifice transcending in its character and in its
effect any animal sacrifice on the altar of the shrine. This was the
willing sacrifice of one who gave his back to the smiters, and his
cheeks to them that plucked out the hair. 3 It was the sacrifice of
one who was without moral blemish, instead of the sacrifice of
an animal without physical blemish. 'He had done no violence;
neither was deceit found in his mouth.' 4 Its effect was greater
than that of any ordinary sacrifice, or even of the sacrifice of the
great annual Day of Atonement. In the presence of the Servant
men are depicted as confessing that he was bruised for their
iniquities, 5 and finding healing and cleansing through his death. 6
Moreover, the range of the effectiveness of this sacrifice was
greater than that of any sacrifice prescribed in the Law. It went
beyond the borders of Israel, andas the mission of the Servant was a
universal one, 7 so the power of his death "was depicted as universal. 8

It is quite clear that our Lord was much influenced by this

1 Luke v. 14; c xvii. 14. S. M. GUmour, in The Interpreter's Bible, viii, 1952, p. 104,
observes that the former passage 'assumes that Jesus contemplated no break with Jewish
sacerdotalism.*

2 Isa. lit 13-liii. 12. 3 C the preceding Servant Song, Isa. 1. 4-9. 4 Isa. lid. 9.
5 Isa. liii. 5. Isa. Hi. 5, 8, 10, u, 12. * Isa. xlii. 2, 4, xlix. 6.
8 Isa. lii. 15 reads in R.V. "So shall he sprinkle many nations', where commentators

have understood the meaning to be the sprinkling of ritual purification. Most modem
wiiters reject this view since the Hebrew would not mean that he would sprinkle some-
thing upon the nations, but that he would pour out the nations. Hence some have found
the sense given in the R,V. marg. 'He shall startle', justifying this by recourse to an Arabic

104

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

passage, and thought of His death before it took place in terms
of the death of the Servant. 1 It was not until after His death that
His followers realized that with that death all other sacrifice
was superseded. Yet it was implicit in His teaching. If His death
was a sacrifice that far transcended in significance and effect
all other sacrifice, and was valid for all men, 2 then no other
sacrifice was needed. The Church was not long in perceiving

meaning of the verb, which is not found elsewhere in Hebrew (so E. Konig, Hebraisches
und aramaisches Worterbuch zum A.T., 6th ed., 1936, p. 27ob, and most recently, I. W.
Slotki, Isaiah, 1949, p. 261, and R. J. Tournay, R.B., lix, 1952, p. 492). This sense is not
very suitable, and convincing arguments against it were advanced by G. F. Moore, in
J.B.L., ix, 1890, pp. 216 ff. The Septuagint version has 'Many nations shall wonder at
him*, and R.. Levy (Deutero-Isaiah, 1925, p. 259) changes the Hebrew to secure this
meaning. Other conjectural changes which have been proposed -would yield the sense
'shall be aroused* (so G. F. Moore, loc. o/.), *shall bow down* (so T. K. Cheyne, The
Book of the Prophet Isaiah (S.B.O.T.), 1899, p. 149, and K. Marti, Das Bitch Jesaja, 1900,
p. 346; earlier Cheyne changed the text to agree -with Hab. m. 6, yielding die sense *he
made the nations to start*, cf. The Prophecies oflsaiali, ii, 1889, pp. 42, 166 }, 'shall be
struck dumb* (so E. J. Kissane, The Book of Isaiah, ii, 1943, p. 184, reading the word
which stands in Exod. xv. 16), 'shall gaze (with amazement)* (so first Vogel, according
to P. V61z,Jesaia II, 1932, p. 170; also P. Humbert, in La Bible du Centenaire, ii, 1947,
p. 416; L. Koehler, Lexicon in V.T. libros, x, 1951, p. 6o4b, reads another form of the
same verb and finds the same meaning), *shall utter an inarticulate cry* (so A. Cohen,
A.J.S.L., sd, 192324, p. 176, retaining the present Hebrew consonants, but assuming
an else unknown Hebrew verb, which is found in Aramaic). Th. C. Vriezen retains the
Massoretic text, but holds that the verb had an elsewhere unexampled meaning *scatter
in fear' (O.T.S., vii, 1950, pp. 203 ). Some writers accept the sense of the Septuagint,
but without specifying by what change of the reading they secure this (so J. van der
Ploeg, Les Chants du Serviteur de Jahv^, 1936, p 13; A. H. Edelkoort, De Chrtstusver-
wachting in het Oude Testament, 1941, p. 394; C. R. North, The Suffering Servant tn
Deutero-Isaiah^ 1948, p. 123). H. S. Nyberg, S.E.A., vii, 1942, p. 47, takes 'many nations"
as the subject of the verb, -which then has the meaning 'shall make ritual purification*,.
This is rejected as improbable by J. Lindblom, The Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah, 1951,
p. 40, who suggests that the verb does not come from the root nazah, but from a root
yazah, which survives in Hebrew only in some Proper Names, and which means 'be-
sprinkle*, i.e. purify from sins. He thus returns to the meaning of R.V. Some editors
arbitrarily delete the word 'nations* from this verse, but there is no evidence for this,
and the reference to *kings* in the following line favours its retention. In the view of the
majority of scholars the speakers in Chapter liri are the Gentiles, who confess that the
sufferings and death of the Servant are for them.

1 Cf. H. "W. WolfF, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum, 1942, pp 49 fT. (2nd ed., 1950, pp.
55 ff.); V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1943 ed., pp. 39 ft.; W. Manson, Jesus the
Messiah, 1943, pp. 30 ff. Cf. also now C, Maurer, Z.Th.K. 1, 1953, pp. i ff.

2 The contrast between 'for many* of Mk. x, 45 and 'for all 1 of i Tim. ii. 6 (cf. also
Tor the whole world* of i John ii. 2) has frequently been pressed. If it could rightly be
pressed it would tell in favour of the earliness of the form of Mk. x. 45. It is very doubtful
if it should be so pressed, and probable that it is a reminiscence of the 'many* which
recurs several times in the fourth Servant Song. Jerome held that the text has *for many*
and not 'for all* to indicate that the death of Christ was only for those who believe (cf.
Migne, P.L., xxvi. 1884, col. 150), but H. B. Swete rightly says that this is unwarranted
(cf. The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1898, p. 226b).

105

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

this, and it does not seem to have asked that those who joined
its ranks from paganism should go to Jerusalem to offer a sacrifice.
Judaism always asked this, so long as the Temple stood. It
welcomed interested foreigners to its synagogues and places of
prayer, 1 but it did not recognize them as proselytes unless they
had offered sacrifice. 2 The Church accepted into the company of
the elect, and recognized as full brothers and sisters in Christ
those who found in the death of Christ their sufficient sacrifice
and the final sacrifice.

Two things are here to be noted. The first is that we have here
the fulfilment of something that was promised in the Old
Testament, and something that by promise and fulfilment binds
the two Testaments firmly together. Of no other than Christ
can the terms of the fourth Servant Song be predicated with
even remote relevance; it would be hard for even the most
sceptical to declare them absurd in relation to Him. For whether
we like it or not, and whether we can explain it or not, countless
numbers of men and women, of many races and countries, and
of every age from His day to ours, have experienced a major
change of heart and life when they have stood before the Cross
of Christ, and have felt that no words but those of Isa. liii. 5 were
adequate to express their thought. 'He was wounded for our
transgressions, he was bruised for iniquities; the chastisement of
our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed/

1 Cf. E. J. Bicker-man, in The Jews, ed. by L. Knkelstein, i, 1949, p. 76: "The Jews
were first of all peoples we know to open wide the gates to proselytes'; p. 104: c lt
seems that in early Hellenism the people who completely accepted Judaism by circum-
cision and baptism, and refused to take part any longer in pagan ceremonies, were rather
rare. But there were numerous Hellenes who revered the Most High without observing
all the prescriptions of the Torah.*

* This, of course, was no longer the case after the destruction of the Temple. The
tradition that this was the rule while die Temple stood is well preserved. Cf. T.B.
Keriihoftt pa (ed. Goldschmidt, ix, 1935, p. 497); Sijre on Numbers 108 on Num.
xv. 14 (ed. H. S. Horovitz, Corpus Tannaittcum, Siphre ad Numeros, 1917, p. 112, or
E. Tr. by P, P. Levertoflf, Midrash Sifre on Numbers, 1926, p. 92); Mekilta de R. Simeon
ben Yohai on Exod. xii. 48 (ed, D. Hoffmann, Mechilta de Rabbi Simon b. Jochai, 1905,
pp. 29 }; Gerim ii. 4 (ed. M. Higger, Seven Minor Treatises, 1930, Hebrew part, p. 72,
English part, p. 50); Maimonides, Issure Biah xiii. I (ed. H. Prideaux, Dejure pauperis et
peregnni apudjudaeos, 1679* P- H3). This tradition is generally accepted as trustworthy.
C E. Scfaiirer, G.J.V., 4th ed., iii, 1909, pp. 181 ; G. F. Moore, Judaism, i, 1927, pp.
331 , 334; J- Bonsirven, Lejudatsme palestinien, i, 1934, pp. 29

106

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

Whether we like it or not, the Cross of Christ stands as the
greatest source of spiritual power the world has seen. When we
look at Isa. liii in the light of the Cross we can only say that
the two correspond impressively, and that nothing else can be
brought into relation with the fourth Servant Song and show any
similar correspondence. If the hand of God is found in the promise,
then fulfilment it ought to have, and here fulfilment is to be seen.
If the hand of God is denied in the promise, then it is passing
strange that it should find so remarkable a fulfilment.

The second thing to be noted is that here the suspension of
sacrifice is quite different in character from that of post-Biblical
Judaism. Within the course of the period covered by the Old
Testament many primitive practices, which went back to the
remote past, and which in many cases Israel shared with her
neighbours and drew from her common heritage with them, had
fallen away. 1 They were not born of the particular faith of
Israel, and though they were continued in her Law, they were
not the expressions of its essential character and spirit, and could
gradually be outgrown and dropped. Sacrifice was not of the
number of these things. It is true that sacrifice came from a wider
than Israelite background, and was not in itself peculiar to the
faith of Israel; but it was not dropped because men had come to
realize that it was superfluous to the real essence of Judaism. It
was dropped because it had to be, and for no other reason. The
one legitimate sanctuary had been destroyed and there could be
no other. In the Mishnah we find evidence of the treasuring of
the memories and traditions of the ritual of the Temple, and it
is abundantly clear that Judaism had not terminated sacrifices
because they were no longer thought to have meaning or value.
For the Church, on the other hand, sacrifice was suspended

1 The custom of the wholesale massacre of a defeated enemy and the destruction of all
his animal and material possessions figures in the earlier history of Israel, but becomes
obsolete in the later period. This custom was not peculiar to Israel, but was shared with
her neighbours. On the Moabite Stone Mesha records that he put the Israelites to the
ban in t-Tn's -way (line 17; cf. G. A. Cooke, A Text-Book of North Semitic Inscriptions,
iO3 PP- I ff-)- Similarly the customs of blood revenge and levitate marriage were
shared with other peoples, but were limited and controlled in Israel. Cf. H. H. Rowley,
Servant of the Lord, pp. 167 fF.

107

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

because it had been superseded by a sacrifice -which corresponded
to one promised in the Old Testament and achieved in history
in a setting which bore the signature of God no less clearly than
the earlier revelation in the Mosaic period. The one suspension
had no relation to the Old Testament and none to the revealed
will of God; the other is closely knit to the promise of the Old
Testament and rests on a new revelation of God, whose guarantee
is similar in kind to that of the guarantee of the old revelation.
Nor does the case for the unity of the two Testaments rest there.
Many were the forms of the hopes set before men in the Old
Testament. The promise of the Kingdom of God is sometimes
linked with the great descendant of David, 1 and sometimes he
is not especially mentioned. 2 It is always in terms of a -world-wide
kingdom, in which righteousness is to prevail, and which conse-
quently will know peace and perfect well-being, since the will of
God will be perfectly done. In one passage, as has just been said,
the death of the Servant of the Lord is associated with the universal
extension of submission to God. All of these hopes come together
in our Lord in a remarkable way. In the confluence of the
streams there is necessarily mutual modification, 3 as there was
bound to be if all were to be in any sense fulfilled. His kingdom
is truly world-wide, though not universal, but it is a spiritual
kingdom and not one resting on material force, and it asks for
the willing acceptance of the rule of God in the heart. All of
this and more has been so often said that there is no need to
enlarge on it here. 4 There is a broad correspondence, though not

1 So, e,g., Mic. v. 2 fl (Heb. I ff.); Isa. ix. 2 ff. (Heb. I T.), xi. i ff.; Jer. xxiii. 5 fF

2 So, e.g. t Isa. ii. 2 ff.; Isa. IL 4 if.; Isa. Ixv. 17 ff.; Dan. ii. 44, vii. 14, 22, 27; Psa. xxiL 27 f
(Heb. 28 f.).

* Cf. G. A. Smith, The Book of Isaiah, i, loth ed., 1897, p. 143 : "The Messianic prophecies
of the Old Testament are tidal rivers. They not only run ... to their sea, which is
Christ; they feel His reflex influence.* In IsraeVs Mission to the World, 1939, p. 97, the
present writer cited this from memory, but was unable to recall where he had read it.

4 F. C. Grant holds that the identification of Jesus in the Gospels with the Son of Man,
the Son of David, and the Suffering Servant offers evidence of the reflection of more
than one type of Christology in the Early Church, and cannot derive from the 'messianic
consciousness* of Jesus, since they are incompatible concepts (An Introduction to New
Testament Thought, 1950, pp. 22 fF,). He is conscious of the difficulty that later Christian
thought, even in the New Testament, succeeded in fusing these concepts, but ifrinlr* it
improbable that Jesus could have so fused them. The present writer has elsewhere argued

108

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

a detailed correspondence, with the promise of the Old Testa-
ment, a correspondence that is significant and impressive, and
one that is quite unique in history. If the hopes \vere in any
sense given to men by revelation from God, then they ought to
be realized, and here is a significant realization; if the hopes were
not given by revelation from God, but were merely the expression
of the delusive hopes of men, then it is surely remarkable that
such delusive hopes proved not to be delusive, but had so impres-
sive a measure of fulfilment.

It cannot for one moment be claimed that the hopes have been
completely fulfilled, however, and it is unwise to concentrate on
the things that are convenient and to ignore the rest. That is far
from being our intention here. The Kingdom of our Lord is by
no means universal, and universal peace is not even on the hori-
zon. Instead of beating swords into ploughshares men make ever
larger and sharper swords, and ever more deadly and destructive
weapons. The full consummation of the hopes of the Old

that the Davidic Messiah and the Suffering Servant are different concepts, though both
related to the Golden Age, as also is the concept of the Son of Man (The Servant of the
Lord, pp. 61 f). Nevertheless he holds that it is not without reason that they came to-
gether in Christ, since both are probably derived ultimately from the royal cultic rites.
The Davidic Messiah concept derived from the victorious and regnant elements in those
rites, -while the Suffering Servant concept derived from the elements of humiliation in
them.. Separated they yield different concepts, which were not brought together until
the time of our Lord. There is, however, no reason why they could not have come together
in His mind. W. F. Howard observes: 'The more we study the primitive Christian tradi-
tion and the earliest Christian preaching the more we must acknowledge that the creative
mind in the Church was that of Jesus Himself. ... The outstanding assertion made by
Jesus in the whole tenor of His teaching and example is that the Messiah must be inter-
preted in the light of the Servant of Jehovah* (E.jT., 1, 1938-39, p. io8b). The incom-
patibility between the regnant and the hiirruliated aspects is removed by the thought of
Christ as both having come and yet to come, and as achieving His triumph through His
suffering. Such an idea was already found in the fourth Servant Song, and it does not
seem improbable that in the Gospels we have an accurate picture. John the Baptist
heralded the Kingdom of God and Jesus took up his message, but as the Leader of the
Kingdom and no longer its Herald. The perception that suffering lay before Him, and
that it would be the organ of His mission and not merely incidental to it, inevitably
meant that His triumph lay beyond the Cross. To the disciples this implied that His
Messiahship was imperilled, but since there is no suggestion that Jesus wavered in His
messianic consciousness, which had preceded His intimations of His sufferings, the recon-
ciliation must have been effected in His mind before it was effected in the minds of any
others. Any other view must involve far too serious and arbitrary a rewriting of the
Gospels. If, as the Gospels narrate, Jesus declared that His death would be followed by
resurrection and return in power, even though the disciples quite naturally were puzzled
at the time, the fusing of the concepts would seem to be complete.

109

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Testament lies still in the distant future, so far as human prescience
can guess. Nor does the New Testament fail to perceive this. The
Early Church did not suppose that the Kingdom of God in all its
universality and final glory was established on earth in the ministry
and death of Christ. It still pkced the final glory in the future.
It believed that Christ was living and that He would one day
reappear to rule His kingdom in the day of its universality. This
is quite different from the Jewish hope that the Messiah will one
day appear. The Church found in the significant measure of
fulfilment of the old hopes the evidence that the Messiah had
appeared and had begun His work. The Kingdom of God had
been established, but the task of its extension was one that could
be achieved but slowly, and the final glory could only come with
the universality of the Kingdom. This was really in accordance
with what the Old Testament had itself taught. It had declared
that before the Golden Age could be attained by any it must be
attained by all, and that its attainment would rest on a spiritual
change in men. All men must go up to the house of the Lord and
freely seek to learn His way ere tie Golden Age could dawn. 1
Such a spiritual change could not be effected in the twinkling of
an eye, but must take time. Moreover, it had been taught in the
Old Testament that Israel was called to be the light of the Gen-
tiles, 2 and had a mission to the world. The winning of all men to
seek the Lord waited for the response of Israel to her mission.

It is frequently observed that the prophet -who looked into the
future could not perceive the temporal relation of the things of
which he spoke. Just as one who gazes at the stars sees them as on
a domed surface and is unable to distinguish their depth in space,
so the prophet in his visions of the Golden Age could not dis-
tinguish depth in time. Hence to the prophets the beginning and
the consummation of the Messianic Age could be linked together,
though at other times they perceived the spiritual processes of
conversion that stood between the two. To the Church that
stood between the beginning and the consummation a period
divided the two. It is true that the Early Church did not rightly

1 fca. ii. 3; Mic. iv. a. *Isa.3dii.6.

110

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

estimate the period, and men who have since sought to estimate it
have continually erred. 1 But the recognition of a period between
the beginning and the consummation is not inconsistent with the
teaching of the Old Testament as a whole, though it is often not
manifest from the individual word. With the recognition of
such a period the Church looked forward to the Second Coming
of Christ in the consummation to bring to completion that
which He had begun in His first coming.

Such extravagances of view on the Second Coming have been
expressed by some that in modern times others have reacted
strongly against the whole idea, and cease to cherish the thought
of it as a living hope This seems to be unwise, and to make
sense neither of the Old Testament nor of the New, and to
suggest a half-hearted faith that Christ is living. 2 If in any real
sense He is believed to be living and to be present in His Church
today, it would seem to be not unreasonable to expect that in the
consummation of the Kingdom He will be more gloriously
manifest. The fundamental hope seems to belong to the thought
of the Bible, and to be essential to the finding in the New Testa-
ment of the fulfilment of the Old. It is quite distinguishable from
the extravagances that seek to define the time and place and
manner of the consummation matters on which the New
Testament expressly warns that speculation is vain. 3

We have far from exhausted the case for the binding together
of the two Testaments. It is not merely that we have the blending

1 P.-H. Menoud, La Vie de VJ-zglise naissante, 1952, p. 43, observes that the Early Church
expected the Second Coming in the immediate future, and Paul believed that he -was of
the number of those who would be still alive at the time of the Parousia (c i Thess.
iv. 15). Nevertheless the delay of the Second Corning did not precipitate a crisis in the
Church because the hope was not tied to any specific chronology, and the believers were
not apocalyptists busy with calculations.

2 Cf. CX Cullmann, Le Retour du Christ, esperance de rgfee, selon le Nouveau Testament,
1943. where it is argued that to reject the hope of the Second Coming is to mutilate the
New Testament message of salvation (pp. 12 ). C what the present writer has written
in The Relevance of Apocalyptic, 2nd ed , 1947, p- 148. *I do not regard the belief in the
Second Advent as a delusion of primitive Christianity, but as something which is in-
herent in the fundamental Christian beliefs. I would deprecate all attempts to determine
when it is to take place, or to define its manner, but it seems to me eminently reasonable
to believe that if the Kingdom of God is ever to be realized on earth, Christ will have
the manifestly supreme place in it." C also ibid., p. 122.

C Mk. xiii. ai. 32 ; Matt. xxiv. 23 , 36; Lk. xxL 8.

Ill

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the expectation of the Messiah and the Suffering Servant and
other forms of the thought of the Golden Age in relation to
Christ and His work. Many other Old Testament streams of
thought run to Him and to His Church; or, if they do not run
to Him, run nowhere. That is why it can be claimed that the
Old Testament requires the New no less than the New requires
the Old. Streams which do not in any sense run to Judaism run
to Christianity, and unless they have meaning in relation to the
Church they can have no meaning at all.

First, however, we may note a remarkable fact which can
claim significance. It has been said that Jesus, Who believed
Himself to be the Messiah, also believed that His death would
achieve what the death of the Servant was expected to achieve,
and that in the experience of men His death has indeed achieved
this. It is to be noted that the Crucifixion took place at the time
of the Passover, and that it was determined and carried through
by His enemies. We are not concerned with the controversy as to
whether the Last Supper was a Passover meal, or whether our
Lord died in the hour when the Passover lambs were being
slain. Whether His death is associated with the death of the
Passover kmbs, whose blood sprinkled on the doorposts was a
reminder of the ancient deliverance, or whether His death, like
that of the firstborn of Egypt, followed the eating of the Passover,
matters little for our present purpose. In either case the death of
Jesus is related to that ancient deliverance by the time at which
it took place. 1 At the time of the Exodus, in the deliverance
from Egypt and in all that preceded and followed it, there was
given a revelation of God, and there lay the foundation of Old
Testament religion as it was established by Moses. Whatever
significance the Passover may have had before, from the time
of the Exodus on its significance for Israel was a new one. Now
once more it is in connection with the same festival that a new
and profounder deliverance is wrought and a new revelation

1 Cf. F.-J. Leenhardt, Le Sacrement de la Satnte Chie, 1948, p. 14: 'The paschal inter-
pretation of the Last Supper of Jesus does not seem to us to depend directly on the solution
of the chronological problem.'

112

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

of God given. Here, too, the New Covenant is established, so
that here again for the followers of Jesus a new significance
attaches henceforth to this festival. What may once have had
apotropaic significance as a spring festival for a pastoral people,
warding off evil influences and perhaps associated in some way
with moon worship, had for centuries had for all Israel, whether
pastoral, agricultural or urban, a memorial significance and a
sacramental significance. Whatever association with moon wor-
ship it may once have had, it lost it for Israel from the time of
the Exodus, and became instead a time when men remembered
what God had done for their fathers and the heritage of freedom
and of faith that had become theirs in consequence, and a time
when gratitude called for the solemn renewal of the Covenant
in recommitment to God in loyalty. Now for the followers of
Jesus every observance of this festival is charged with a new
commemorative significance. It preserves the memory of the
deliverance wrought by Christ, and calls for new gratitude and
new consecration. If someone had sat down to create a story that
should be dramatically appropriate, one could understand his
lighting on the time of the Passover for this climax of his story.
If the hand of God was at work, carrying the old revelation
forward into a new one, lifting the old deliverance to a new
plane of deliverance, filling the ancient festival a second time with
fresh significance, one could understand it. But if it were merely
the accident of the choice of Christ's foes that caused this remark-
able coincidence, it would be both surprising and beyond all
explanation. For to declare a thing an accidental coincidence and
to leave it at that is to offer no explanation, but to declare that it
is incapable of explanation.

To add to the remarkable nature of this fact we have the prior
declaration of our Lord that His foes were about to strike, and
His linking of His death with the New Covenant. 1 The New

1 Lk. -anm, 20. This verse is omitted from the Western text, and its originality has
therefore been contested. Cf. J. Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 2nd ed., 1949. PP*
67 flf., where the evidence is presented and examined, and where it is held that the longer
text is original. In its reference to the New Covenant it agrees with the Pauline account,
i Cor. xL 25, from which it is sometimes held to have been borrowed. A. J. B. Higgins,

us

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Covenant had been spoken of by Jeremiah. 1 By its very name it
pointed back to the old Covenant of Sinai, which sprang out of
the deliverance from Egypt, and pointed forward to the future.
Here, at the Last Supper, on an occasion that itself points back to
the old Covenant, and on the eve of His death which his enemies
were at that moment planning, Jesus picks up the thought of the
New Covenant. Jeremiah had said that this was to be written on
men's hearts, and not on external tables of stone, and that it was
to spring from deep intimacy with God, in which the children
of die New Covenant would know Him in living fellowship.
When Jesus spoke to His followers of the New Covenant He
called diem to eat and to drink of Him, and to experience a
union of themselves with His spirit. In Him God was revealing
Himself anew to them, so that in His spirit they saw God's
Spirit, and in union with Him they were experiencing union
with God. So many Old Testament streams run together here
that only a blinding prejudice can hide their significance. And
even prejudice could not produce any other confluence of these
streams that could show a comparable impressiveness.

Nor have we yet finished. Throughout the Old Testament we
have the idea of the Remnant. 2 Though all Israel would not rise
to the full glory of its high calling and fulfil the purpose of
Israel's vocation, it was perceived that the stream of the election
might be narrowed to the Remnant, who alone should inherit
the promises and who alone should bring true loyalty to the

The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 1952, pp. 37 ffl, argues that both Luke and Paul
used a common tradition. F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought, 1950,
p. 204, observes that the identification of the covenant with the *new' covenant is peculiar
to Paul's interpretation of the nte. To the present writer it seems that very heavy weather
is made of the word *new*. In Mk. xiv. 24 the saying reads "This is my blood of the
covenant*. This form is held to be older than the Paulina form, though it stands in a
later work (cf. Grant, tbid.; so also Jeremias, op. cit. t p. 85). It can scarcely be supposed
that in the Marcan form the covenant could be the ancient covenant of Sinai. It must
therefore necessarily be a new covenant, and the Lucan and Pauline form, whether
original or not, is legitimate interpretation of the meaning. Cf. J. Hiring, La premiere
pitrc de St. Paul aux Corinthiens, 1949, pp. 101 if., where it is argued that the thought
must be of Ex. xxiv. 8, and of another covenant conceived in those terms.

1 Jer. renri. 31 f

* On the Remnant cf. H. Dittmann, T.S.K., Ixxxvii, 1914, pp. 603 fE; R. de Vaux,
R.B., xlii, 1933, pp. 526 flf.; E. W. Heaton, J.T.5., N.S. iii, 1952, pp. ayflf.; also the
present writer's Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. 71 fL

114

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

tasks of the election. "While sometimes the Remnant is thought
of as spared not for its own loyalty, 1 but for the sake of a future
generation, that it might transmit the heritage it did not itself
value to a generation that should value it, its end and purpose
was still a loyal and consecrated people. 2 At other times the
Remnant is thought of as itself loyal, spared because it is the true
heir of the Covenant. 3 In either case it is perceived that the heritage
of election and the privileges of the Covenant belong only to the
faithful in Israel who bring to the Covenant their loyalty and
fulfil the purposes of the election. It is not the automatic inherit-
ance of all who are born into the Israel after the flesh. The line of
election is limited to the faithful. Yet alongside this we have the
widening of the stream to include those who were not of the
Israel according to the flesh, but who came to share the worship
of Israel's God, and the perception that it belonged to the mission
of the elect to carry the faith of Israel and the Law of God to
all men. 4

Here again we have factors in the Old Testament pointing to
the future, and factors which have not pointed to post-Biblical
Judaism. By New Testament times Judaism had won large
numbers of converts from paganism, and we should never
forget how much the Early Church owed to this fact. Though
the Apostle Paul was often persecuted by the Jewish communities
to which he went in many cities it was the synagogues to which
he first went, and they provided him with his first forum and
often brought him face to face with his first converts. While
Judaism was never a missionary faith in the sense in which the
Church became missionary almost from its inception, it had a
solid missionary achievement to its credit. 5 But soon it ceased

1 Cf. Amos iv. ii. 2 Cf. Isa. x. 20 f.

3 Cf. i Kings xix. 18.

4 Cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, pp. Biff.

6 Cf. C. G. Montefiore, in The Beginnings of Christianity, edited by F. J. Foakes Jackson
and K, Lake, i, 1942 ed., pp. 42 fE, and the editors, ibid., pp. 164 fE A. Causse, Israel et la
vision de Vhumanite, 1924, pp. 129 fE; Bousset-Gressmann, Die Religion desjudentums im
spathellenistischer Zeitalter, 1926, pp. 7<S 51; G. F. Moore, Judaism, i, 1927, pp. 323 C;
J. Bons3xven,JeJudaismepalestinien t i, 1934. PP- 22 ff.; M. Simon, Vents Israel, 1948. pp.
315 C; J. Jeremias, S.N.T.S. Bulletin, 1952, pp. i ff.

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

to be missionary in any effective sense, and many of its leaders
deprecated the winning of converts. 1 The message of Deutero-
Isaiah and of Jonah cannot be said to point to post-Biblical
Judaism for its serious adoption as a programme. Nor can
Judaism in the centuries that have followed be said to have spread
the Law of God as given to it in the Old Testament specially
widely amongst men. 2 No Jewish society comparable with the
British and Foreign Bible Society has ever been formed. The
oldest surviving translation of the Old Testament into another
language is the Greek version known as the Septuagint. This was
prepared by Jews, as also were some other ancient versions. But
these were prepared for the use of Jews in the first instance, and
not as a means of making the Jewish Scriptures known amongst
the heathen. No Jew has ever set to work, as "William Carey did,
to translate the Bible into language after language and to send it
forth to be its own ambassador to peoples too numerous to be
reached by his voice, and to whom he had no means of sending
forth living ambassadors.

The Church, on the other hand, has been thus missionary from
the time of the Apostles until today. It has sent forth men and
women set apart for the specific task of winning others to share
its faith, and it has been instrumental in winning vast numbers
from innumerable nations to worship the God of Israel. It has
translated the Jewish Bible into countless tongues and has spread
it throughout the earth, so that no book is so widely known and
loved amongst men as the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and
the New Testament that belongs so intimately to it. The mission
committed to Israel, according to the teaching of the Old
Testament, has been accepted and carried out by the Church on

1 C C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, ii, 1909, p. 728: "The Palestinian Rabbis
were on the whole not particularly favourable to proselytes'; C. J. Cadoux, The Historic
Mission of Jesus, 1941, p. 150: 'Certain it is that this main line of Jewish life represented
by Rabbinism paid very little regard to the universalistic ideals represented in the Old
Testament, and became eventually so self-centred that even the zeal for proselytism faded
away.'

fi L, L Newman holds that though Jewish opinion as a whole did not favour the making
of proselytes, and the Rabbis sometimes denounced would-be converts to the authorities*
nevertheless the Jews did not wholly cease to make converts in the Middle Ages. C
Jewish Influence on Christian Reform Movements, 1925, pp. 394 ff.

116

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

a scale incomparably greater than anything that can be found
outside the Church. 1

Moreover, the Church consisted of a Remnant of Israel,
together with Gentiles who were won to the faith by them. The
first Christians were all Jews, undeniably a Remnant of Israel,
whether they be thought to be the Remnant of Promise or not.
Soon they had communicated the faith to non-Jews who entered
whole-heartedly into it and took its obligations seriously. Either
this was the fulfilment of the hope and promise of the Old
Testament or it was not. If it was not, then where shall we look
for the fulfilment ? And if it was not, how comes it to pass that
here we find so remarkable a correspondence with the promise
that had been set forth? If this was not the Remnant of Promise,
then how comes it to pass that the obligations of the Covenant,
including the obligation to make the Only God of all men known
throughout the world, and to carry His Law to the nations,
were so enthusiastically taken up by this Remnant, while the
Remnant of Promise is still to seek? The faith of the Church that
it was the Remnant of Promise is surely supported by the testi-
mony of history, in which its inner hope has found such signal
vindication in demonstrable fact.

Here, then, are a few of the ways in which the New Testament
may be said not alone to spring out of the Old, but to respond
to the faith and promise of the Old. We have not merely a
development that did in fact follow from the Old. Expectations
and promises are set before men in the Old Testament, and in
the New Testament and in the Church we have the only response
to them so far seen, which can be taken seriously. It is not that
we have in the New Testament and in the Church a response
which the Church believes to be superior to the response that can
be found in Judaism. With all its nobility and grandeur, which
may be recognized with the utmost sincerity, Judaism does not

1 Cf. L. Knkelstein, The Pharisees, ii, 1938, pp. 498 : 'The Pharisees traveled over
land and sea to win converts to their views, and proselytes to Judaism "were to be found
in Rome, in Egypt, and in the midst of Arabia. And finally, when Judah, weary with
its struggle against R.ome, was beginning to withdraw into itself; the task was taken
over by the apostles of Christianity.*

117

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

even claim to be the response to these hopes. It has no Messiah
to offer, no Suffering Servant that can gather to Himself the
things predicated of the Servant in the fifty-third chapter of
Isaiah, no new revelation of God to authorize the dispensing
-with sacrifice, no vital sense of a mission to win the world for
its God, no overmastering passion to communicate the Law of
God to all men. All of these things, and more that could be
added to them, are offered in the New Testament and in the
Church, where the response to the promises is impressive indeed.
To ignore all these elements in tie Old Testament and yet to
regard it as the vehicle of divine revelation seems impossible.
To ignore them and to dismiss the Old Testament as a human
document in which no hand of God is to be seen seems equally
impossible. For neither of these attitudes can account for the
remarkable correspondences which have been noted, correspon-
dences which in part belong to the texture of events and not to
the design of any human mind, which of itself could be supposed
to be linked with a will capable of achieving it. On the other
hand, to regard the New Testament with veneration and to find
in Christ the supreme revelation of God, and at the same time
to ignore the Old Testament and the correspondences at which
we have looked, seems also impossible. The Old Testament is
wanted not alone to provide the background of the New. It
offers its contribution to the guarantee of the authority of the
New Testament no less really than the New Testament brings
its guarantee of the authority of the Old Testament. The promise
of the Old could not by itself ensure its fulfilment in the New;
yet since it was written before the fulfilment it was necessarily
independent of that fulfilment. Neither Testament can be
explained from the other alone; yet both find their sufficient
explanation if the hand of God is in both. Just as Moses promised
a deliverance he could not achieve, and a power beyond human
control answered with the deliverance; and as our Lord promised
that His death would release unique power, but could not by His
promise give that power to His death if He were no more than
a village carpenter, yet did in fact achieve by His death all that

TI8

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

He promised; so here we find a prior word and a subsequent
fulfilment, where the word, if it had no higher source than a
human thought, could not effect the fulfilment.

The argument from prophecy has hardly seemed respectable
to many modern writers, and an apology is almost required if
one uses such an argument. It has a legitimate use, though we
should be careful not to pass beyond its legitimate use. Sometimes
men have torn isokted words out of their context and wrested
their meaning, or resorted to a convenient version for a meaning
that could be pressed into service. The use of the Septuagint
translation in Isa. vii. 14 is a famiHar case of the latter, 1 while the
New Testament offers several instances of the former. That kind

1 The Hebrew word which is translated by 'virgin* in R.V. neither requires nor
excludes virginity, and the American R.S.V. accordingly renders by "young woman".
The Greek renders by a word which limits the meaning to 'virgin*, and the New Testa-
ment accordingly cites the verse in Greek in this form in Matt. L 23. Since the primary
reference in Isa. vii. 14 must be to a child about to be born, if this birth was to be a sign
to King Ahaz, it is improbable that a virgin birth was in the prophet's mind. Father C.
Lattey (C.B.Q., viii, 1946, pp. 375 f.) holds that the primary reference was to Isaiah's
own son, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, though he holds that by the principle of compenetration
there was also a reference to our Lord's birth. This recognizes that in the primary refer-
ence the child of a human father is intended, and so justifies the rendering of the R.S.V.
Since Father Lattey firmly believes in the Virgin Birth of our Lord, it is clear that there
is no necessary danger to that doctrine in this translation, though Father Lattey still
translates by 'virgin' since he applies the principle of compenetration to the mother as
well as to the child. On tM passage cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, p. 150 n., and the
literature there referred to. F. C. Grant, An Introduction to New Testament Thought, 1950,
p. 23 1, holds that the belief in the Virgin Birth as reflected in the New Testament is
secondary and inferential, and that it is derived from Isa, vii. 14, and supported by it.
It is more probable that men who believed in the Virgin Birth seized on the Greek
rendering of Isa. vii. 14 to support the view by a prophecy, in accordance with rabbinical
methods of exegesis, which allowed what was useful to be torn from its context and used
without regard to the context, than that this verse gave the starring point, and the story
of the Annunciation was then created to justify the doctrine. Such a view implies that
the doctrine first arose in Greek-speaking circles, since it rests on the Septuagint rendering,
whereas the Hebraic character of Luke i.-iii. and of the First Gospel, where alone the
Virgin Birth is recorded, is generally recognized. C J. Moffatt, Introduction to the
Literature of the New Testament, 3rd ed., 1918, pp. 266 , where the view is expressed that
Luke i. 5-11. 52, iii. 23-38, represents an early Palestinian source which Luke translated
and worked over, perhaps inserting i. 34 , and p. 255 , -where it is held that the author
of the First Gospel is a Jewish Christian, acquainted with rabbinic learning, and employ-
ing Palestinian traditions. It is improbable that Luke was himself the free creator of Luke
i. 34 , since the passage shows the parallelism of Hebrew poetry, and it is probable that
it was taken over from a Hebrew or Aramaic source. For the view that these verses are
a later addition, cf. A. Harnack, Z.N. W. t ii, 1901, pp. 53 flf., and on the other side M.-J.
LagrangejIsixMigjfc selon Saint Luc, yth ed., i948,pp. 31 flf. For a discussion of the rendering of
R.S.V.cj J.Owens, Review and Expositor, 1, 1953, pp. 56 ff.,andT>aIe Moody, ibid., pp.6i
fE, and for a defence of the rendering 'virgin* cf.J. Coppens, E. Th.L., xxviii, 1952, pp. 648 &

119

THE UNITY OB THE BIBLE

of argument may have a hoirdletic or psychological value; it
has no logical value. Much Rabbinic exegesis was of diisjdnd,
and it is not surprising that we have some traces of it in the New
Testament. 1 So far as the Virgin Birth of Christ is concerned it
is neither proved nor disproved by reference to Isa. vii. 14, which
promised King Ahaz a sign, and which therefore gave assurance
of a fulfilment that he should live to see. We have not resorted
to such examples here, in order to force the argument from
prophecy beyond its legitimate limits. 2 We have rather been
content with the broad outlines of the hope and with the fulfil-
ment, where we are moving in a common context. 3 Moreover,
when reference has been made to a common texture in the
revelation of the Old and New Testaments, there has been no
resort to typology or the argument that the purpose of the one
revelation was to prepare the way for the other. 4 Where a

1 Cf. J. Guillet, Themes Bibliques, 1950, p. 22: *There are certainly some disconcerting
arguments in Pauline exegesis.* Cf. also J. Bonsirven, Exegese rdbbinique et exegese paulin-
ienne, 1939, pp. 327 flf. T. W. Manson, B.J.R.L., xxxiv, 1951-52, p. 312; says: 'In some
cases the connection between the supposed prediction and its fulfilment is of the flimsiest
character, and when we get into the field of allegorical interpretation and typology, it
often seems as if the only limits to what can be done are set by the resource and fertility
of invention of the expositor.' Cf. also Manson's article 'The Argument from Prophecy',
J.T.S., xlvi, 1945, PP- 129 ff.

* Cf. "W. Zunmerli, Evangelische Tlieologte, xu, 1952-53* pp. 34 ff- esp. p. 58.

s The writer has been criticized on the ground that he is undermining faith by seeking
to offer rational 'proof * in the argument from prophecy. The reader who has followed
his argument will be aware that this is not so. Cf. what he has written elsewhere: 'I am
not attempting to replace faith by a logical demonstration that will make it superfluous.
I have already said that man is more than mind, and I do not forget that religion touches
every side of his being. I am only seeking to show that though man is more than mind
he is also mind, and that he need not suspend that side of his being when he speaks of
the authority of the Bible. . . . "What I am concerned to say is that the authority of the
Bible zests on objective evidence that God was active in event and personality, and that
both belonged together, and that the whole process culminated in the death and resurrec-
tion of Chnst, which were charged with demonstrably unique power. Faith is not
rendered superfluous. But faith is the subjective response to the authority of the Bible
and of the God Who is recognized to speak through it, just as loyalty is the response of
the good citizen to the authority of the state. And faith opens the heart to the entrance
of the Spirit, by Whose operation the riches of the "Word of God are increasingly seen
and appropriated' (The Authority of the Bible, 1949, p. 20). To show that faith is reason-
able is not to destroy faith; nor is the establishment of its reasonableness to be confused
with 'proof*.

* Cf. "W. Eichrodt, Israel in der Weissagung des Alien Testaments, 1951, where allegory
is rejected but substance found in the broad hope of Old Testament prophecy. C also
H. W. Hertzberg, Werdende Kirche im Alien Testament, 1950, where other aspects of
the relations between the Testaments are studied. For a fuller treatment of this theme
c N. A. Dahl, Das Volk Gottes, 1941.

I2O

THE FULFILMENT OF PROMISE

common signature is to be found in the texture of the revelation,
the purpose of the first was not merely to ensure the identification
of the second. Each message that bore the signature was a signifi-
cant message of God. With the broad hope and its fulfilment,
however, there is a more direct interlocking and mutual guarantee
of authority. 1 From both the community of pattern and the
interlocking we may reasonably conclude that there is a profound
and important unity running through both Testaments, and that
it is the unity of the thread of the revelation of the One God.

1 Cf J. W. Bowman, J.R., xxv, 1945, p. 58b: 'To say that Jesus consciously fulfilled
the prophetic concepts (not "predictions") with which we have been dealing is simply
to say that we live in a theistic -world and that there is such a thing as a divine purpose
in history.*

121

THE CROSS

HITHERTO we have considered some aspects of the unity of the
Old Testament and some of the things which hind the Old
Testament and the New securely together. Little has been said
of the inner unity of the New Testament, and on this little will
be here said. 1 The New Testament consists of books which were
written within a relatively short space of time, and it presents
quite a different problem from that which the Old Testament
raises. The compilation of the various books of the Old Testament
occupied many centuries, whereas the books of the New Testa-
ment were all composed within a period of about half a century.
That there are differences of emphasis even within the New
Testament is neither to be denied nor surprising. 2 For if divine
inspiration came through the medium of human personality, the
inspired writings bore the marks of that personality, 2nd the
differing outlook, thought and interest of the various writers
may be seen, as well as the truth which is unfolded through them.
It is well known that each of the Gospels has its special interests
and character, and by their study we can learn something of the
personality of the evangelists. Even within the Synoptic Gospels,
despite all that they have in common, there are differences, and
between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel there are
much greater differences. While all tell the story of the life and
death of Jesus, each has its own particular purpose. Nevertheless
the space they all give to the record of the last few days of the
life of our Lord, and particularly to His trial and death, reveals a
significant common interest that outweighs all their differences.

1 C A. M. Hunter, The Unity of the New Testament, and ed., 1944; also V. Taylor,
E.T., Iviii, 1946-47. pp. 256 F. E. F. Scott, The Varieties of New Testament Religion, 1947,
emphasizes the differences which must never be lost sight of in the recognition of unity.

2 Cf. V. Taylor, loc. dt.> p. 256: "This unity does not mean that the same teaching is to
be found in every part of the New Testament, but rather that the distinctive ideas which
are characteristic of individual writers rest upon a common basis, bringing out points
which are wanting or latent elsewhere and so establishing an organic whole.'

122

THE CROSS

Between the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament there
are yet more obvious differences. For if the Gospels tell the story
of the life and death and teaching of Jesus, the rest of the New
Testament may be said to record the teaching ot the Early
Church about Him* Here we might have found as great a differ-
ence as there is between the teaching of Buddha and the teaching
of Buddhism about him. We find nothing of the kind. It is
true that the Gospels represent Jesus as saying very little about the
mystery of His Person, whereas the Epistles contain much on this
subject. Yet within the Gospels we find that Jesus quietly assumes
a uniqueness of His Person and His authority that is far more
impressive than a theological disquisition about His Person
would have been. In the Fourth Gospel we find on our Lord's
lips such words as 'I and my Father are one'; 1 'He that hath seen
me hath seen the Father'; 2 *I am the light of the world'; 3 *I am
the way, the truth, and the life'. 4 But in the Synoptic Gospels
we find that Jesus spoke with authority, and not as the scribes, 5
and that He claimed quite simply and not seltassertively to be
charged with power to forgive sins, 6 and assumed the authority
to supersede the law of Moses. 7 He could say 'Come unto me all
ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest'. 8
And if in the Fourth Gospel He says *I am the bread of life', 9 in
the Synoptic Gospels He gives bread to His disciples and says
'Take, eat; this is my body*. 10 While there are many contrasts
between the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth Gospel, which
need be in no way minimized or forgotten, there is a yet greater
measure of unity in the impression which they make of the
uniqueness of Christ's Person. There is an implicit theology in

1 John x. 30. 2 John xiv. 9. 3 John viii. 12. 4 John xiv. 6.

8 Mk. i. 22; Matt. vii. 29.

* Mk. ii. 5, 9 ; Matt. ix. 2, 5 ; Luke v. 20, 23 7 Matt. v. 21 fF.

8 Matt. xi. 28. On the suggestion that we have here a quotation from, a Jewish wisdom
book, and that it has been put into the mouth of Jesus, c T. W. Manson, The Sayings
of Jesus, 1949, pp. 185 Manson concludes: 'It does not seem necessary to assume that
the words are a quotation. If the author of Ecclesiasticus could think of such words, so
might Jesus. Further, it is not necessary to suppose that there is any reference to Wisdom
in the text. ... It is surely more natural to suppose that Jesus is here speaking as the
representative, not of the divine Wisdom, but of the Kingdom of God/

9 John vL 35. 10 Matt. xxvi. 26; c Mk. xiv. 22, Luke xxii. 19.

123

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

the Gospels and an explicit theology in the Epistles; but they are
not unrelated to one another. Nor should we forget that for the
record of the Virgin Birth we rely on two of the Synoptic
Gospels, while all the four Gospels record the Resurrection, to
which frequent reference is made in the other books of the New
Testament. All make it plain that Jesus is presented as unique in
His Person as well as in His Work. In all the Gospels Jesus assumes
a relation to God that is different from that of others, even though
He addresses Him as Father and teaches others to address Him
by the same term- The theology of the Gospels is not something
wholly other than the theology of the Epistles.

To this it may be replied that while all may be in a measure
true, we have yet to recognize that we cannot get back from the
Gospels to Jesus. He is effectively screened from us, and we can
only confess that we have reports about Him, whose accuracy
we cannot check. Where we have a threefold witness in the
Synoptic Gospels, it can be discounted on the ground that all of
these go back to a single witness, and the mere fact that it was
copied by more than one writer gives it no added authority. Where
we have our Lord's words differently recorded in the different
Gospels, they may be again discounted on the ground that we
cannot be sure which, if any, of the versions gives us His ipsissima
verba. We therefore have a Morton's Fork that can with, equal
skill dismiss the common testimony and the differing testimony.

Such dialectic skill will fail to satisfy those who reflect that the
purpose of the Gospels is not to present us with the ipsissima verba
of our Lord, but to bring us face to face with Him, that we may
see Him as men saw Him and feel the impression which He made
on those with whom He lived. The revelation of God came in
the totality of His personality, and not in particular words alone.
Of His words and deeds we have but a very small selection. Yet
by the study of the Gospels we can know Him, and the Jesus
Whom we come to know in the Gospels is the same in all of
them. Moreover, if the Synoptic Gospels can sometimes be
reduced to a single witness, we should not forget that in their
totality they present more than a threefold witness. Beyond these

124

THE CROSS

three books, or rather behind them, we have the common source
of Matthew and Luke and the special sources on which Matthew
and Luke severally drew. Moreover, these sources carry us back
beyond the date of our present Gospels to somewhere much
nearer to the time of our Lord.

While much might be said on all these subjects, it is not our
purpose in this chapter to dwell on the Person of Christ, or to
emphasize at length the measure of unity on this question that
is to be found in the teaching of the New Testament as a whole,
or to show what preparation it had in the teaching of the Old
Testament. In the previous chapter brief reference was made to
this. In the Synoptic Gospels Jesus is represented as thinking of
Himself in terms of the Messiah, and thus claiming to be the
answer to the hope of the Old Testament. He also gathers to
Himself all that is associated with the term Son of Man. He
uses this term of Himself and specifically refers to Dan. vii. I3, 1
where the Son of Man is brought into connection with the
establishment of the Kingdom of God. Similarly, His thought
. of Himself was in terms of the Suffering Servant of the Lord, 2
and the prophet's conception of the Servant became actualized
in Him. All of these streams go back to the Old Testament, and
if the thought of the rest of the New Testament is linked to that
of the Synoptic Gospels, that of the Synoptic Gospels is linked in
innumerable ways to the thought of the Old Testament.

1 Matt. xxvi. 64. On this cf. C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus, 1941, p. 293.
T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus, 2nd ed., 1935, pp. 227 , argued that the individual-
izing of the figure of the Son of Man and equation with Jesus was the outcome of the
ministry of Jesus, and that on His lips the term had precisely the same meaning as in
Daniel, where it indicates 'the manifestation of the Kingdom of God on earth in a people
wholly devoted to their heavenly King*. More recently Manson has modified this view
by the recognition that more weight should have heen allowed to the osculation between
the individual and the collective (BJJR..L., xxxii, 1949-50, pp. 190 ff.). Cf. The Biblical
Doctrine of Election, p. 157, and The Servant of the Lord, pp. 81 f. n. J. M. C. Crum, St.
Mark's Gospel, 1936, pp. 102 f, holds that the use of the term "Son of Man' goes back
almost, but not quite, to the time of our Lord. He thinks it was first used by the Early
Church as a formula with reference to the Second Advent, and then applied to Jesus and
ascribed to Him. Since the term is found outside the Gospels only in Acts vii. 56, there is
scanty evidence for this theory. Already the term had become obsolete on the lips of the
Church by the time of Paul's earliest writings, and it is highly improbable that it had
been created and died in the Church in so short a time, to survive only in the unhistoric
ascription to Jesus, which this theory postulates.

3 C A. M. Hunter, op. dt., pp. 99

125

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Here, however, our thought will be limited more particularly
to the Cross* Clearly this was of supreme importance in the eyes
of all the Evangelists, since they give it so large a place. In the
preaching of the Early Church, as recorded in the Acts, it had
prominence. Similarly, in the teaching of the Epistles and of the
Apocalypse we again find emphasis on the death of Christ and
the significance it had. Here is one of the outstanding marks of
the unity of the New Testament, and the thought of the New
Testament is set in a wider context in the teaching of the Old
Testament as well.

Much modern thought on the Cross is set in an Abelardian
mould. It repudiates the forensic and the commercial approaches
which have been characteristic of some interpreters, whereby
the death of Christ was thought of in penal terms or in terms of
the satisfaction of a debt. It cannot suppose that the justice of
God was satisfied by the most flagrant injustice. For vicarious
suffering is by its very nature not to be expressed in terms of
justice. Nor can it think of God as a creditor only concerned with
securing His pound of flesh, but indifferent whether it comes
from the bankrupt debtors or from another who volunteers to
settle the debt on their behalf. Nor can it press the metaphor of
the ransom in the way that so many interpreters have pressed it.
Much of the early thought of the Church seized on the text 'The
Son of Man came ... to give his life a ransom for many*, 1 and
interpreted the ransom as a price paid to the Devil, so that by
His death Christ bought us out of the power of the Evil One.
Respectable theologians went so far as to suppose that the Cross
was the bait by which God hooked the Devil, 2 and that though

1 Mk. x. 45; Matt, xx. 38.

*So Gregory of Nyssa. C Migne, P.G., xlv, 1863, col. 65; J. H, Srawley, The
Catechetical Oration of Gregory of Nyssa, 1903, p, 93. "W. Moore translates this passage as
follows: *Ih order to secure that the ransom in our behalf might be easily accepted by
him who required it, the Deity was hidden tinder the veil of our nature, that so, as with
ravenous fish, the hook of the Deity might be gulped down along with the bait of
flesh.* Cf. Nicaie and Post-Nicene Fathers, ed, by H. Wace and P. Schafi; Second series,
v, 1893, p. 494- Similarly Ambrose can speak of a fraud practised by God on the Devil
(c Migne, P.L., xv, 1887, col. 1699; Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, xxxri,
Part 4, 1902, p. 145)- Ambrose regards the death of Jesus as the satisfaction of a bond
which the Devil held against us (c Migne, P.L., xvi, 1880, cols. 313 ; cf. col. 1299,
translated in The Letters ofS. Ambrose (Library of Fathers), 1881, p. 426).

126

THE CROSS

the ransom was paid to him he found he could not hold it and
so lost both ransom and prisoners. One of the latest writers to
present this type of view said: 'What did the Redeemer do to
our captor? He extended to him His Cross as a mouse-trap
(muscipulam); He set there as a bait (quasi escam) His blood*. 1
Small wonder that such views cannot commend themselves to
men today!

With such views the sacrificial view of the Cross has also gone
largely out of fashion in modern times. This has probably been
due in part to the prevalence of the view that sacrifice was
abolished in the teaching of the pre-exilic prophets. If God had
already revealed through His prophets that He did not desire
sacrifice and never had desired it, then it could not be supposed
that He could find satisfaction in the sacrifice of Christ. Implicit
in such a view is the conception of sacrifice in terms of a single
element of its complex character. If sacrifice were no more
than a gift to appease an angry God, the sacrificial view of the
Cross might with advantage be abandoned. Such a view also
implies a false emphasis in the conception of God. Too often
in the sacrificial interpretation of the Cross God and Christ have
been set over against one another in complete antithesis. God
has been depicted as the stern embodiment of justice, and Christ
as the gentle embodiment of love; and the drama of redemption
has been set forth in terms of love's triumph over justice, and the
appeasing of the wrath of God by the noble self-surrender of
Christ. 2

As against this the texts in the New Testament which have
been most stressed by many of those with an Abelardian approach
are such words as *God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto
Himself*; 8 'God commendeth his own love toward us in that
while we were yet sinners Christ died for us 7 ; 4 'God so loved the
world that He gave his only begotten Son that whosoever

1 So Peter Lombard (cf. Migne, P.L., cxcii, 1880, coL 796),

2 C E. Masure, The Christian Sacrifice, 1944, p. 169: 'This doctrine some have mis-
interpreted by making an opposition between the God of Mercy who desires to pardon
and the God of Justice who refuses pardon. But Scripture does not speak of such a tendon."

8 2 Cor. v. 19. 4 Rom. v. 8.

E

*

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life'. 1
All of these texts stress the thought of the Cross as the mani-
festation of the love of God. It was not merely Christ's love that
was there revealed, but the love of God, so that Christ in His
love is not to be set over against God in His justice.

With all this the present writer has the fullest sympathy. It
cannot be that He Who in His life was the revelation of God was
in His death the antithesis of God. It cannot be true that there
was an inner tension between the love and the justice of God,
leading to their distribution between two Persons of the Trinity.
The very foundations of monotheism are threatened by such a
view. We must therefore stand quite firmly with those who find
in the love which is revealed in the Cross the expression of the
love of God no less than of Christ, and give the fullest weight to
those elements in the teaching of the New Testament on which
they rely.

We do little justice to the teaching of the New Testament,
however, if we pick out certain elements and ignore the rest. 2
Moreover, we forget the teaching of the Old Testament if we
think of justice and love warring against one another. When
Amos said in the name of God 'You only have I known of all
the families of the earth; therefore will I visit your iniquities
upon you', 3 he linked the justice of God with His love. Similarly
Hosea was a prophet of judgement, but also a prophet of love,
and the love and the judgement were not in conflict. God's
justice is the expression of His love, and His discipline of Israel
was designed to awaken her to the folly of her way and to
restoration to Himself. We must therefore beware of thinking
that all interpretations of the Cross in terms of judgement are

1 JohniiL 16.

* C V. Taylor, E.T., IviH, 1946-47, p. 25pb: 'It is significant that almost all the great
theories have been based on (New Testament) teaching, and that, in so far as they have
failed, their failure has been due to an excessive dependence upon certain elements in it
and the consequent neglect of others."

Amos iii. 2. Cf. The Biblical Doctrine of Election, p. 53 n.: 'The sense is clearly not
merely "recognized", but "recognized as mine", or "chosen".' A. Neher, Amos, 1950,
pp. 34- f f discusses this at length, and notes that the mediaeval Jewish commentators
Ra*hi and imhi rendered 'known* by loved* and 'chosen* respectively.

128

THE CROSS

inconsistent with interpretation in terms of love. The two belong
together, and if we tear themapartwe have a one-sided view of the
significance of the Cross and a one-sided view of God, that fits
the teaching of the New Testament no more than that of the Old.

To review all the teaching of the New Testament is here
impossible, and it lies beyond our purpose to offer a complete
theological interpretation of the meaning of the Cross. All that
can here be done is to emphasize certain elements in the teaching
of the New Testament, and particularly the sacrificial elements,
and to show how they take up Old Testament ideas which,
rightly understood, fill them with rich meaning. So long as we
think of sacrifice in terms of that which the pre-exilic prophets
condemned, it is rightly objectionable. They condemned a
sacrifice which was offered as an external and merely ritual act,
without relation to the heart and will of the offerer, and without
either arising from his life or exercising any influence upon his
life. But if we have rightly said that in the teaching of die Old
Testament sacrifice must bear a two-way traffic or none, and that
it could not be charged with power to bless the offerer unless it
was also charged with his surrender of himself in humble sub-
mission and obedience to God, the position is greatly changed.

It is easy to think of all that differentiates the death of Christ
from a sacrifice. He was not slain in the Temple and consumed
on the altar. The men who crucified Him and drove the nails
through His hands were not priests, and those who delivered
Him to death could not be thought of as offering unto God a
sacrifice well pleasing unto Him and fraught with blessing to
themselves. Yet before we dismiss the thought of the death of
Christ in terms of sacrifice, let us remember that in the fifiy-
third chapter of Isaiah the death of the Servant is presented as a
sacrifice. As has been already said, tin's is not merely in the word
'asham, or sin-offering, but in the whole thought of the chapter.
The Servant is led as a lamb to the slaughter and bears the sins of
many. Yet his death was not effected in the Temple with priestly
ritual. The sacrifice of the Servant was the most potent sacrifice
referred to in the Old Testament, wider in its efficacy than any

129

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

sacrifice offered in the Temple, and extending its benefits to the
nations. Moreover, this sacrifice surpassed any that was offered
on the altar of the Temple in that here one who was without
moral blemish yielded himself freely to death as the organ of his
mission to others. It is with that climax and crown of Old
Testament sacrifice that the death of Christ is to be linked, and is
linked in the thought of the New Testament.

In an earlier chapter it has been said that Israelite sacrifice came
out of a background of primitive sacrifice and of Canaanite
sacrifice. It took many forms and served many purposes. 1 Here
in the concept of the Servant we have the richest development of
the thought on sacrifice found within the compass of the Old
Testament. It was linked with all the background of sacrifice
in Israel and beyond in the far past, but it marked an Israelite
development, associated with the characteristic ideas of the Old
Testament but moving forward under that dynamic power
which is so marked a feature of the Old Testament revelation. It
is with this most advanced point that the New Testament thought
of the Cross is to be connected. It is, besides, to be remembered
that it is not only in relation to sacrifice in general that the two-
way traffic of sacrifice is emphasized in the Old Testament, but
in relation to this sacrifice in particular. Men must stand in awe
and confession before the Servant ere his death is potent to bless
them. They must say 'Surely he hath borne our griefs and
carried our sorrows. . . . He was wounded for our transgressions,
he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace
was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed' 2 and charge
the martyred Servant with their penitence and surrender, before
they could be of the transgressors for whom he made intercession, 3
and of those whose iniquities he bore and who were refashioned
in righteousness by his sacrifice. 4

We may now turn to underline some elements in the teaching

1 Cf. B.J.R.L., xxxiii, 1950-51, pp. 83 ff.; also G. B. Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament,
1925; "W. O. E. Oesterley, Sacrifices in Ancient Israel, 1937, pp. 75 f. On the variety of
Old Testament sacrifices and the purposes they served cf. further E. Dhorme, La Religion
des Hebrew Nomades, 1937, pp. 201 ft., and A. C. Welch, Kings and Prophets of Israel,
1952, p. 182. * Isa. HiL 4 * Isa. hii. 12. * Isa. liii. n.

130

THE CROSS

of the New Testament which point to this kind of sacrificial
thought. Jesus Himself, especially in the latter part of His ministry,
spoke to His disciples about His approaching death. 'He began
to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things, and
be rejected by the elders, and the chief priests and the scribes, and
be killed and after three days rise again/ 1 Here the fact of His
coming death is emphasized, and it is not presented in terms of
the love of God but in terms of the hostility of men. There is
no suggestion here of sacrifice, but in the reference to the Resur-
rection there is the implication that the death of Christ will not
be the death of defeat, but will be charged with power. Later
we read: 'Verily the Son of Man came not to be ministered
unto but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many'. 2
Here we have the ransom metaphor which has so much obsessed
some theologians, and has been so much abused. However the
metaphor is to be understood, it is clear that the thought is of
service which should be rendered to others through the organ
of Christ's death. The same thought is brought out again at the
Last Supper, where Jesus says: 'This is my blood of the covenant,
which is shed for many*. 3 When Matthew adds 'unto the remission

*Mk. viii. 31; Matt. xvi. 21; Luke ix. 22. F. C. Grant, The Earliest Gospel, 1943, p.
179 n., and The Interpreter's Bible, vii, 1951, pp. 767 , denies that this is a genuine utter-
ance of our Lord's, and holds that it has been created from the Passion narrative, on -which
it depends. C. J. Cadoux, The Historic Mission of Jesus, 1941, pp. 286 fF., is doubtful of
the originality of the references to the Resurrection, but apparently accepts the genuine-
ness of the prediction of the Passion. He observes: *We are not, however, bound to go so
far as to suppose that all Jesus' references to his Resurrection were created by the early
Church in the light of the Easter experience* (p. 297). M. Goguel, The Life of Jesus,
E. Tr. by O. Wyon, 1933, p. 390, while doubtful of the triple announcement of the
suffering, death and resurrection of the Son of Man, owing to its theological bias, finds
that Lk. xvii. 25 'falls into an entirely different category. This saying cannot have been
invented by tradition, for it does not mention death or resurrection.' For a fuller accept-
ance of the historical reliability of these passages cf. J. Denney, The Death of Christ,
ed. by R. V. G. Tasker, 1950, pp. 25 f

2 Mk. x. 45; Matt. xx. 28. On the suggestion that the saying in Mark is of Pauline
origin, cf. V. Taylor, The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952, pp. 445 f. F. C. Grant, The
Earliest Gospel, 1943, p. 151, observes that it is more un-Pauhne than Pauline. Cf. also
M.-J. Lagrange, Evangile selon St. Marc, 1947 ed., pp. 281 fF.

3 Mk. xiv. 24. F. J. Leenhardt, Le Sacrement de la Sainte Cene, 1948, pp. 51 fF., holds
that the Pauline form in I Cor. xi. 25, is older than the Marcan, but J. Jerermas, Die
Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 2nd ed , 1949, p. 85, favours the Marcan form as the earliest.
Cf. also A. J. B. Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 1952, pp. 29 fF. For
our present purpose either form would be equally relevant, On the grammatical diffi-
culties of the Marcan form as a translation from Aramaic, cf. Jeremias, op. cit. t p. 99.

131

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of sins' 1 he makes explicit what is implicit in the words of
Mark.

Of these two passages Vincent Taylor says: 'Here it is sufficient
to say that certainly the second, and probably also the first saying,
indicates that, when Jesus spoke of His death, His thought was
influenced by Old Testament teaching regarding sacrifice. In
the case of the first passage, this conclusion cannot be established
on linguistic grounds, but depends on whether the phrase "a
ransom for many" reflects the influence of Isa. liii/ 2

There are some scholars who deny that our Lord was influenced
by the conception of the Suffering Servant, and who attribute
to later thought all in the Gospels which points to such an
influence. 3 This the writer finds it hard to believe, 4 and it can
only be established by first dismissing the evidence we have.
That Jesus taught His closest disciples that He would suffer
seems to belong too closely to the texture of the Gospel story to
be torn out in this way, and from no passage in the Old Testa-
ment can any basis for such teaching more relevant than Isa. liii
be found. Hence it is probable that Moffatt is right when he says:

1 Matt. xxvi. 28. Cf. V. Taylor, Tlie Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952, p. 546: 'The
addition is interpretation, but valid interpretation, for the connexion of forgiveness with
the idea of the new covenant is distinctive of Jer. xxxviii. (xxxi.) 31-4.*

a Cf. Jesus and His Sacrifice, 1943 ed., p 74.

3 Cf. J. Weiss, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 3rd ed., edited by W. Bousset and
W. Heitmuller, i, 1917, pp. 174 ; H. Rashdall, The Idea of Atonement in Christian
Tlieology, 1919, pp. 49 ff.; B. W. Bacon, J^BX., xlviii, 1929, pp. 59 fF.; C. T. Craig, J.R.,
xxiv, 1944, pp. 240 ft; B. H. Branscomb, Tlie Gospel of Mark, 5th imp., 1948, pp. 190
F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, Tfie Beginnings of Christianity, i, 1942 ed., pp. 383 f,
say: *The most probable theory is that Jesus spoke of his future sufferings in general terms,
and that his disciples developed his sayings in accordance with the event. . . . The fact
that Jesus did suffer preceded the discovery of suitable prophecies.* Cf. A. Loisy,
L'vangile selon Marc, 1912, p. 403, where it is maintained that two essentially different
ideas are combined in JMk. x. 45.

4 Cf. A. E. J. Rawlinson, St. Mark, 1925, pp. 146 ff.; H. 'Wheeler Robinson, The
Cross of the Servant, 1926, pp. 64 ff.; G. Kittel, Deutsche Theologie, 1936, pp. 166 ff.;
A. M. Ramsey, The Gospel and the Catholic Church, 1936, p. 17; "W. F. Howard, E.T.,
J 1938-39, pp. 107 C; R. Otto, The Kingdom of God and the Son of Man, E. Tr., by
F. V. Filson and B. Lee-Woolf; 1943 ed., pp. 244 ff.; V. Taylor, Jesus and His Sacrifice,
pp. 39 ff., and The Gospel according to St. Mark, 1952, pp. 445 ; C. J. Cadoux, The
Historic Mission of Jesus, 1941, pp. 253 ; H. W. "Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum, 1942,
pp. 49 ff. (2nd ed., 1950, pp. 55 ff.); W. Manson, Jesus the Messiah, 1943, pp 30 ff.;
J. W. Bowman, J.R., xxv, 1945, pp. 56 ff.; C. R. North, The Suffering Servant in Deutero-
Isaiah, 1948, pp. 24 ; J. Schniewind, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Das N.T. Deutsch),
5th ed., 1949, p. 144-

132

THE CROSS

'The suffering Servant conception was organic to the conscious-
ness of Jesus/ 1 Similarly Vincent Taylor finds unmistakable echoes
of Isa. Hii in a number of passages in the Gospels, and expresses his
belief in their genuineness, and consequently concludes that
'Jesus was profoundly influenced by the Servant-conception'. 2 He
finds it particularly significant that we have allusions rather than
quotations, and says *It is probable that the Servant-conception
would be much more obvious in the Gospel tradition if it were
not an authentic element which goes back to Jesus Himself/ 3

It is curious to observe that some recent scholars have gone to
the other extreme. Instead of finding the hand of the Church in
the allusions to the Suffering Servant, and so making the bringing
of this concept into association with the Messiah concept later
than the ministry of Christ, they have held that the union of
the Suffering Servant with Messianic thought antedated the time
of Jesus. 4 This seems to be as great an error, and it is far more
likely that the first linking of these concepts should be ascribed
to our Lord. 5 This is, indeed, the common view, 6 and it is borne

1 Cf. The Theology of the Gospels, 1912, p. 149.

z Cf. Jesus and His Sacrifice, p. 47.

*Ibid., p. 48. Cf. Th. Preiss, E.Th.R., xxvi, 1951, p. 52: 'If the Early Church had
invented the application of Isa. hii. to Jesus, it would have made more extensive use of
the prophecies; and would have attributed quotations to Him.'

4 Cf. J. Jeremias, Deutsche Theologie, u, 1929, pp. 106 ff., and Aux Sources de la Tradition
Chr&ienne (Goguel Festschrift), 1950, pp. 112 ff; W. Staerk, Soter, 1933, pp. 77 f. ;
N. Johanneson, Parakletoi, 1940, pp. 113 fif.; H. Riesenfeld, Je^us transfigure*, 1947, pp.
8 iff., 3 14 fif.; "W. D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 1948, pp. 274 ff. L Engnell
maintains that the Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah -was already in the prophet's mind
identified with 'the Messiah himself, the Saviour king of the dynasty of David* (BJ R.JL.,
xxxi, 1948, p. 58). A. Dupont-Sommer holds that the Teacher of Righteousness of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and of the Zadokite Work in the first century B.C. already combined
in himself die roles of Suffering Servant and Messiah, and that his martyrdom gave rise
to a whole theology of the Suffering Messiah (Apercus preliminaires sur les manuscrits de
1a Mer Morte, 1950, pp. 116, 121 f., E. Tr. by E. M. Rowley, 1952, pp. 96, 99 f-)- C. C.
Torrey holds that the conceptions of the Davidic Messiah, the Suffering Servant and the
Son of Man 'had been combined, speculated upon, and fashioned into a many-sided
doctrine, held and cherished by the Jewish people long before the beginning of the
Common Era* (J.BJL., xlviii, 1929, p. 25).

5 Cf. the writer's essay on "The Suffering Servant and the Davidic Messiah*, in The
Servant of the Lord and Other Essays, 1952, pp. 61 fl (also in O.T.S., viii, 1950. P- 100 ff.).

6 Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, i, 1927, pp. 551 f-, &, *930, p. 166"; M.-J. Lagrange,
Lejttdatsme avantJtsus-Christ, 1931, p. 385; P. /olz, Die Eschatologie derjudischen Gememde
im neutestamentlichen Zcitalter, 1934, p. 228; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T
aus Talmud und Midrasch, ii, 1924, p. 274.

133

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

out by the fact that the disciples, even when they thought of
Jesus in terms of the Messiah, were completely nonplussed by
the thought of His possible suffering. Wheeler Robinson says:
'Accepting the form* (sc. of the messianic hope) 'He transformed
the content of Messianic belief, by interpreting His Messiahship
in the light of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 *. x Whatever our
conclusion on this issue, Vincent Taylor observes that the sacri-
ficial interpretation of the other passage which is quoted above,
Mark xiv. 24, is inescapable, and that therefore 'whatever
explanation of the death of Jesus we may give today, there can
be no doubt at all that Jesus Himself understood its meaning in
terms of sacrifice/ 2

The Fourth Gospel thinks of the death of Jesus rather in terms
of the Passover lambs than in terms of the Suffering Servant.
This is easily understandable since it was at the time of Passover
that the Crucifixion took place. This Gospel represents our Lord
as slain at the very time when the Passover lambs were being
slain, 3 and therefore as not having eaten of the Passover at the
Last Supper, and it antedates to the beginning of His ministry
and ascribes to John the Baptist the perception that He was 'the
lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world.' 4 Here
there is a clear interpretation of the death of Christ in terms of
sacrifice, though it is found in the Gospel which emphasizes the
thought of the death of our Lord in terms of the expression of
the love of God. It is here that we find the most familiar text in
the ^vhole of the New Testament, John iii. 16, where the context
clearly indicates the thought of the Cross and where this is
declared to be the evidence of the surpassing love of God. We

1 Cf. Revelation and Redemption, 1942, p. 198. Cf. also pp. 199, 251 , andj. W. Bowman,
The Intention of Jesus, 1945, p. 10: ^esus and he alone was responsible for the fusion of
the two prophetic concepts noted* i.e. the Suffering Servant and the Messiah.

2 C Jesus and His Sacrifice, p. 74. * Cf Jn. xviii. 28.

4 Jn. L 29. H. W. WolflEi following C. J. Ball (H.T., xxi, 1909-10, p. 93a), C. F. Bumey
(The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 1922, pp. 107 ), and J. Jeremias (Z.N.W.,
xxxiv, 1935, pp. 115 fiv, cf. Th.W., i, 1949 ed., p. 343) finds here a reminiscence of
the Servant Songs, since the saying probably goes back to an Aramaic utterance, and in
Aramaic talyff may mean servant or lamb. Cf. Jesaja 53 im Urchristentutn, 1942, p. 72,
2nd ed., 1950, p. 81. Against this cf. R. Bultmann, Das Evangelium des Johannes, nth
ed., 1950, p. 67.

134

THE CROSS

should be very careful before we set the ideas of love and sacrifice
as the keynotes for the interpretation of the Cross over against
one another as antithetical.

Elsewhere in the New Testament the Cross is frequently
referred to in sacrificial terms. There are several passages where
the necessity for Christ's sufferings is insisted on, sometimes with
a probable allusion to Isa. liii, though without an explicit indica-
tion that the sufferings are the organ of His mission. 1 There are
others -where it is made clear that Christ's death is the organ of
His redemption. * Without shedding of blood there is no remission
of sins* we read in the Epistle to the Hebrews, 2 in a context
where the whole thought of the Cross is sacrificial. Here, however,
it is not directly in terms of the Suffering Servant, or of the
Passover Lamb, but in terms of the ritual of the Temple. c lf the
blood of goats and bulls, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling them
that have been defiled, sanctify unto the cleanness of the flesh:
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 to serve the living God?' 3
Nevertheless it is to be observed that there are some reminiscences
of Isa. liii in the chapter in which these words occur, and there
may be some allusion to the Servant here. 4 Vincent Taylor notes
that even in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is not claimed that
Christ's death is to be explained in terms of any one of the
sacrifices of the Old Testament, 5 and thinks it probable that here
and in the New Testament generally *the sacrificial element . . .
is to be found, not so much in the specific rites of the cultus, as
in the underlying ideas of sacrifice/ 6 When we considered the
Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah we noted that the Servant was
presented as one freely yielding himself to suffering and without

1 Cf. Acts xvii. 2, xxvi. 23; Luke xxiv. 26 f. 2 Heb. ix. 22. 3 Heb. ix. 13 f.

4 C. H. Dodd, The Old Testament in the New, 1952, p. 9, observes that of the twelve
verses in Isa. InL 'there is only one which does not reappear, as a whole or in part, some-
where in the New Testament. . . . This surely means that the writers of the New
Testament ... all considered this chapter, taken as a whole, to have outstanding
significance for the understanding of the Gospel/ Cf. also id., According to the Scriptures,
1952, pp. 92 ff.

6 Cf. The Atonement in New Testament Teaching, 1940, p. 273. 6 Ibid , p. 274.

135

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

moral blemish. It is possible that in the words 'who . . . offered
himself without blemish unto God' 1 we have an allusion to this
here. Elsewhere in the same Epistle it is emphasized that Christ
was One Who needed not to offer sacrifice on behalf of Himself,
since He was holy, guileless and undefiled. 2

In the Pauline Epistles we have not merely the already noted
thought of the Cross as the expression of the love of God. Christ
is said to have been delivered up for our trespasses, and raised for
our justification, 3 and we are declared to be justified by His blood
and reconciled unto God by the death of His Son, 4 Here, as in
the Old Testament, the idea of justification is sometimes given a
forensic interpretation. 6 It is probable, however, that in this
passage it has a profounder meaning, and speaks of the miracle
of the making righteous of the unrighteous. God is not content
with a false declaration, and when He declares men righteous
it is because they have become righteous. 6 This is quite certainly
the thought of the New Testament as a whole whatever may be
the etymological meaning of the term used here. 7 For elsewhere

1 Heb. ix. 14. Similarly Heb. ix. 28 embodies reminiscence of Isa. liii. 12.
Heb.vii. 26 f.

* Rom. iv. 25. C. ELDodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1942 ed , p. 70, observes:
No antithesis is intended between "delivered for our trespasses", and "raised that we
might be justified". Somewhat after the manner of Hebrew parallelism, the meaning
is "He died and rose again in order that we might be delivered from the guilt of our
sins'V * Rom. v. 9

* Cf. Grimm-Thayer, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1901, p.
I5ob; A. C. Headlam, in Hastings's D.B., ii, 1899, pp. 826 flf. Headlam says (p. 826b):
*In Biblical literature the word diKatovv is always used, or almost always, in the forensic
sense, and its proper meaning is to pronounce righteous. ... It may be taken as certain
that it cannot mean to make righteous/ Cf. also C. H. Dodd's careful discussion in The
Bible and the Greeks, 1935, pp. 46 fT.

* C L. Cerfaux, in S..DJ5., iv, 1949, col. 1485: 'The divine intervention involves
more than a simple declaration. . . . Righteousness is not simply "imputed", but
constitutes an actual condition of the man who is justified."

7 Headlam (ibid.) cites Godet, who 'goes so far as to say that there Is not a single example
in the whole of classical literature where the word = to make righteous*. To make this
consideration conclusive it would be necessary to adduce evidences of the concept 'to
make righteous* from classical literature to show how such an idea was expressed. The
miracle of recreation which is characteristic of Biblical thought was not one which would
occur readily to a Greek, and he is not likely to have felt the need for such a term. On
the other hand when the Biblical writers wished to express such a thought, they had to
do the best they could with the terms they could find. Missionaries could give many
examples of the way in -which they have had to use inadequate terms in vernacular
languages.

136

THE CROSS

we read of the necessity for the death of the old self and the birth
of a new self. 'If any man is in Christ', says Paul, 'He is become
a new creature'; x while in the Fourth Gospel we read 'Except a
man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God/ 2 How
this miracle is thought to be effected we shall consider later.
Here it will suffice to note that this justification is effected by the
death of Christ, which is thus thought of in sacrificial terms. 3

Even more directly sacrificial terminology is used in the Epistle
to the Ephesians, where it is not merely said that our redemption
is through the blood of Christ, 4 but where the death of our Lord
is explicitly referred to as an offering and a sacrifice unto God. 5
In the Epistle to the Colossians the bond standing against us by
reason of our sins is said to have been nailed to the Cross 6 and
therefore removed from us. It lies beyond our province to
consider the question of the authorship of these Epistles, and
since we are considering the teaching of the New Testament as

1 2 Cor. v. 17.

2 Jn. iii. 3, The Greek could here be rendered 'from above', instead of 'anew', but as
R. Bultmann (Das Evangelium des Johannes, nth ed., 1950, p. 95 n.) says, it can only
mean 'anew* here, and it is so rendered in most translations. Cf. F, Bdchsel, Th.W-B.,
i, 1949 ed., p. 378.

3 On the place of sacrifice in Paul's thought on the Cross, cf. W. D. Davies, Paul and
Rabbinic Judaism, 1948, pp. 230 f.

* Eph. i. 7. Cf. S. D. F. Salmond, The Expositor's Greek Testament, ed. by W. R. Nicoll,
iii, 1912, p. 254b: *It is a sacrificial term, based on the use of the blood of victims, offered
under the Old Testament Law.'

5 Eph. v. 2. Cf. also Rom. iii. 25, on which M. Goguel, The Life of Jesus, E. Tr., 1933*
p. no, observes that Paul 'appears to conceive the redemptive death in terms of the
Levitical sacrifice*. C. H. Dodd, op. cit., p. 55, observes that 'propitiation* is a misleading
rendering, and that the meaning is *a means whereby guilt is annulled' (cf. also his The
Bible and the Greeks, 1935, pp. 846. and /.US., xxxii, 1930-31, pp. 325 ) C also
M.-J. Lagrange, pitre aux Remains, 1950, pp. 75 , L. Morris, E.T., Ixii, 1950-51, pp.
227 f, L. Cerfaux, Le Christ dans la Thtologie de St. Paul, 1952, pp. 114 ff, and the long
note in Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Mtdrasch,
iii, 1926, p. 165 rF. W. D. Davies, op. cit., pp. 232 flf., discusses this passage, and says
(p. 236): 'We are justified in finding in the Pauline application of the term "blood" to
Christ die use of a sacrificial concept.' T. W. Manson, J.T.S., xlvi, 1945, pp. i fF., argues
that the reference is to the 'place of propitiation', and that the background of the thought
is the ntual of the Day of Atonement. C further W. G. Kummel, Z.Th.K., xiix, 1952,
pp. 154 flf.

8 Col. ii. 14. A. Deissmann, Paul, E. Tr. by W. E. Wilson, 2nd ed., 1926, p. 172, says:
'Anyone who has seen one of the numerous records of debt on the papyri that have
been discovered, will realize that the metaphor, which Paul carries out so strikingly,
of the bond nailed to the cross, after being first blotted out and so cancelled, was especially
popular in its appeal.*

137

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

a whole it matters not whether they are from the hand of Paul
or not. Indeed, if they are not Pauline the evidence is even
stronger. For in addition to the Synoptic Gospels and the Fourth
Gospel, the Epistle to the Hebrews and the genuine Pauline
Epistles, we should then have these evidences of yet another
author or authors to show that the Cross was thought of in
sacrificial terms. Nor have we yet finished. For in I Peter we
similarly read that Christ bore our sins in His own body on
the tree, 1 and in i John that He is the propitiation for our sins and
for those of the whole world. 2

While few of these interpretations of the Cross are directly
linked with any Old Testament passage, and while some think
in terms of the Passover or of the Temple ritual, there can be no
doubt from the number of allusions to Isa. liii in the New Testa-
ment that that chapter had a large place in the thought of the
Early Church, and that Christ was believed to have fulfilled the
mission of the Servant. Leaving aside allusions which stand on
the lips of our Lord in the Gospels, we may note that the First
Gospel declares that in Him was fulfilled the saying 'Himself
took our infirmities and bare our diseases', 3 and also finds the
first Servant Song fulfilled in Him. 4 The Fourth Gospel applies
to Him the opening words of Isa. liii, 5 and in the early preaching
of the Apostles, as recorded in the Acts, Jesus is sometimes
referred to as c the Servant*. 6 Moreover, in the passage recording
the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch everything depends on the
identification of Jesus with the Servant. 7 The reference to Jesus
taking upon Him the form of a servant, in Phil. ii. 7, may also

1 1 Pet iL 24. On this passage, V. Taylor, The Atonement in New Testament Teaching,
1940, p. 42, says: c ln order to express the meaning of Christ's death, it draws upon the
underlying ideas of the arrifirjaT system, rather than die special associations of any one
rite.'

* i Jn. ii. 2. C. H. Dod4 The Johannine Epistles, 1946, pp. 26 , says: 'The reference
in L 7 to the blood of Christ suggests that the author is thinking ... of the death of
Chnst as analogous to animal sacrifices. . . . The term used, however, does not in
itself connote a blood sacrifice.* Cf. J. Chaine, Les pitres Caiholiques, and ed., 1939,
pp. 153

* Matt. viii. 17. Cf. Isa. liii. 4.

4 Matt. xrL 18 f fi Jn. xii. 38.

6 Acts iii.^ 13, 2<5, iv. 27, 30. Cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, pp. 107 f.

7 Acts viii. 32 f.

138

THE CROSS

be an allusion to the Deutero-Isaianic Servant, as may Paul's
reference elsewhere to the death of Christ as being 'according to
the scriptures'. 1 Further, the context of the verse already quoted
from i Peter abounds in allusions to Isa. liii. 'Christ suffered for
you, leaving you an example, that ye should follow his steps:
who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth . . . who
his own self bare our sins in his body on the tree ... by whose
stripes ye were healed. For we were going astray like sheep.* 2

Despite the particular place which this chapter had, however,
it is clear from the references to other sacrifices 3 that to the Early
Church Christ had superseded the need for all sacrifices. In giving
reality to the highest thought on sacrifice found in the Old
Testament He had gathered into Himself all the enduring
significance of all sacrifice. 'We have been sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all/ 4

In considering the Old Testament sacrifices we have observed
that they were believed to be charged with power when rightly
offered. In the New Testament the sacrifice of Christ on the
Cross was similarly believed to be charged with power unto
them that are called. 5 Yet like the power of the old sacrifices it
became effective only when the sacrifice was the organ of man's
approach to God. It was not something automatic and unrelated
to the spirit of those -whose sacrifice it was. Whether the sin
offerings of the Law, or the offering of the Day of Atonement,
or the sacrifice of the Servant, all had to be charged with confes-
sion and surrender and to become the organ of submission to the
will of God before they could become the organ of divine
blessing. In the New Testament we find that this aspect of the
meaning of sacrifice is not forgotten, but on the contrary con-
tinually stressed. The Cross is potentially effective for all the
world; yet for some it is the organ of condemnation. Just as
sacrifices in Israel that were not the organ of the soul's approach

1 1 Cor. xv. 3. The allusion to Isa. liii. here is not, however, certain. Cf. V. Taylor,
op. cit., pp. 31 f., J. Heruig, La premise Jzpttre de St. Paul aux Corinthiens, 1949, pp. 134 f-
2 i Pet. 11. 21 rT. Cf. E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, pp. 92 fF.
*E.g. Passover (i Cor. v. 7), and the Day of Atonement (Heb. ix. 6 fT).
4 Heb. x. 10. 5 i Cor. L 24.

139

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

to God brought condemnation on men, so those for whom the
sacrifice of Christ is not the organ of their approach to God
stand under condemnation. 'God sent not the Son into the world
to condemn the world; but that the world through him might
be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he
that believeth not is condemned already.' 1 Many who did not
live in the days of Christ's flesh may find blessing and salvation
through His Cross; but by the same token others who never
saw Him may be guilty of the body and blood of Christ, 2 or may
crucify afresh the Son of God. 3 While salvation is an external
act, wrought by the power of God through the death of Christ,
it is not wholly an external act, without relation to the spirit of
men. Those who reject Christ, or who repudiate His way, share
the iniquity of the crucifixion and stand before God in the
company of Christ's crucifiers.

That is why the New Testament insists so much on faith. For
faith is no mere intellectual belief, though it inevitably includes
an intellectual element. But fundamentally it is not an integrated
system of theology but the surrender of the person. 4 When
Jesus said to men *Thy faith hath saved thee*, He was not thinking
in terms of a creed. He meant such a belief in Him that it involved
the abandonment of the whole personality to Him, to be re-
created by His touch and transformed into His own likeness.
The woman who was a sinner and who bathed His feet with her
tears heard Him say c Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace'. 5
She did not return to her sin, for she went forth a changed
woman. The self that loved the sin had died, and one now
marked with the purity of Christ went forth to live in newness
of life. This is what is meant by faith elsewhere in the New
Testament. It is faith into Christ, faith that so identifies a man
with Him Who was crucified that instead of being numbered
with His crucifiers he becomes one with Christ, and the Cross
becomes the organ of his submission of himself to God. Paul said
If we have become united with Him by the likeness of his death,

1 Jn. iii. 18. a I Cor. xL 27. s Heb. vi. 6.

4 C the wnter*s Outline of the Teaching of Jesus, 1945, pp. 30 f. * Lk. vii. 50,

140

THE CROSS

we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this,
that our old man was crucified with him, that die body of sin
might be done away/ I

The Fourth Gospel, which also emphasizes the importance of
faith and in a passage whose context clearly links it with the
Cross of Christ says 'God so loved the world that He gave his
only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish but have everlasting life', 2 stresses elsewhere the importance
of the complete identification of the whole person with Christ.
The union with Him must be as intimate as the union of the
branch and the vine, 3 so that in a profound sense a man abides
in Christ, and Christ in him, 4 Such a thought is also characteristic
of Paul, and it is always brought into relationship with the Cross. 5
'That I may gain Christ, and be found in Him, not having a
righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but
that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which
is of God by faith: that I may know him and the power of his
resurrection and the fellowship of his sufferings, being conformed
unto his death'. 6 la a vital sense the believer must die with
Christ, 7 so that the death of Christ on the Cross becomes the
organ of his death to the past and to all that separated him irom
God. 'I have been crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; and
yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live
in the flesh, I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me
and gave himself for me.' 8 The Cross is not alone the power of
God effective on behalf of a man. It is something into which he
must in a profound sense enter. At its foot the old self dies and
Christ bears his humble surrender of himself to God; and in the
same moment He bears to him from God the renewed self,
marked with the presence and the purity of Christ. The miracle
of rebirth is achieved, and he who one moment stands numbered

1 Rom. vi. 5 f. a Jn. iii. 16. 3 Jn. xv. 5.

4 On the Johannine thought of union with God in Christ cf. C. H. Dodd, The Interpre-
tation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, pp. 187 ff.

5 Cf. J. Schneider, Die Passionsmystik des Paulus t 1929, pp. 21 flf. 6 Phil. iai. 8 i

7 On the Pauline thought on dying and rising with Christ cf. A. Schweitzer, The
Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, E. Tr. by W. Montgomery, 1931, pp. 101 fF.

8 Gal. ii. 20.

141

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

with the crucifiers of Christ is the next moment identified with
Rim., dying with Him 1 and passing through death to newness of
life in Him. 2 There is no suggestion that he is saved by his own
surrender, or his own resolve, or even by his own faith. He is
saved by the power of God, and his surrender is but the condition
which he must fulfil. It is precisely as we found it in the Old
Testament, where forgiveness and cleansing are ever represented
as the act of God and not of man. When the sacrifice was charged
with power, it was not a power that the offerer communicated
to it by his touch. It was die power of God. This is integral to
the thought of both Testaments, and is one of the strongest
marks of die unity of the Bible. It is this which more than anything
else links the sacrificial thought of the Cross with the thought of
the Old Testament. For while in the Old Testament sacrifice for
purely ritual offences might be thought of as having a mechanical
or magical power, in all other cases the teaching of the Old
Testament is uniformly that it has no efficacy as a mere opus
operatum; and in the teaching of the New Testament the Cross
is never thought of in terms of magic, or as effective through the
mere opus operatum. Hence the sacrificial interpretation of the
Cross does not commit us to the idea of a loving Christ wresting
from a just and reluctant God the boon of salvation. It permits,
nay requires, us to find the power of its love to awaken our
hearts to repentance to be but the power of God, and the cleansing
and renewing power which lifts our lives into the life of Christ
to be equally the power of God. 'And you did he quicken when
ye were dead through your trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime
ye walked according to the course of this world. . . . But God,
being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
even when we were dead through our trespasses, quickened us
together with Christ . . . and raised us up with him/ 3 Salvation
is born of the love of God, but it requires the yielding up of the
self to die with Christ and to rise with Him to newness of life. It is
therefore dear that the Cross must bear a two-way traffic or it can
bear none. From God's side there is ever the readiness to operate

1 Rom. vi 8. * Rom. vi. 4. Epiu ii. i flf.

142

THE CROSS

that two-way traffic, but it cannot operate until there is readiness
on man's side and the inevitable condition is fulfilled. It cannot be
a two-way traffic until there is faith, and faith is not compelled.

Not seldom faith is thought of as the organ of salvation, and
a man is thought to save himself by his repentance and faith. The
difference between condition and organ is a profound one. If I
want electric light in my room I must press the switch, but I
deceive myself if I suppose that my pressing the switch produces
the light. If there has been a power cut I shall soon be disillusioned.
Nevertheless the pressing of the switch is necessary as the con-
dition of the becoming available of the power, which I do
nothing to create. In a comparable way, in the teaching of the
Bible the power of salvation is the power of God, and man's
right approach to God is but the condition of its release.

The fundamental truth of the two-way traffic of the Cross is
expressed differently in the New Testament when it uses the
metaphor of the Mediator for Christ. We read: 'There is one
God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ
Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all/ x A mediator is essentially
one who represents each side to the other, and here Christ is
thought of as representing us to God and God to us. There is
thus a measure of truth in the idea that Christ is set over against
God in the drama of redemption. In so far as He represents us He
stands in our stead over against God; in so far as He represents
God He stands over against us. It is not in His love that He
represents us, however, for such love is not the reflection of our
hearts. In His love and in His power to cleanse and renew He
represents God to us. *God so loved the world', and that love of
God is manifested to us in the love of Christ. It is in His sin that
He represents us to God. For 'Him who knew no sin he made
to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness
of God in him.' 2 Here again we probably have a reminiscence of
Isa. liii, for this is very much what we read of the Servant there.
'The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all ... though
he had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his

1 1 Tim. ii. 5. a 2 Cor. v. 21.

143

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

mouth'. 1 Christ, our Mediator, bears our sins to God and so
represents us to God, and with it bears our surrender in penitence,
and bears to us the cleansing touch of God that delivers us from
sin to newness of life.

It is hard to overemphasize how much of the Old Testament
thought runs together here. There is not merely the conception
of the meaning of sacrifice, caught up at its highest point, and
particularly in the thought of the Servant, and the insistence on
the double character of sacrifice. Nor is there merely the response
to the hope of the Old Testament in a sacrifice which has become
indeed the organ of salvation to countless myriads of men of
every race, and in relation to which men have said simply and
humbly and with demonstrable appropriateness *He was wounded
for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we
are healed 5 . 2 There is the renewal of so much of the pattern of
Old Testament thought. The fundamental nature of religion is
here, as throughout the Old Testament, recognized to lie in a
life of obedience to the will of God, whose spring lies in fellow-
ship with God. In the Old Testament doing justly and loving
mercy rested on the humble walk with God; and here the new-
ness of life to which men are called is the newness to which they
are lifted when the Spirit of God, mediated to them through
Christ, so fills their hearts that they can say: *I have been crucified
with Christ; nevertheless I live, and yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me/ 3 Religion does not consist merely in the observance of
religious forms, but penetrates to the very spring of life, and
issues in a quality of life which marks its every aspect. To Jesus
all life was aglow with God, and He would have His followers
similarly conscious of God's presence with them in every experi-
ence. He taught them to pray to the Father 'Thy will be done on
earth as it is in heaven'. 4 None can pray that prayer sincerely if
he is indifferent whether the will of God is done in his own life
or not. And none can live in intimate union with Christ who is

1 Isa. liii, 6, 9. a Isa. liiL 5.

GaLii.2o. *Matt.v. 10.

144

THE CROSS

thus indifferent. If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because of righteousness/ I

Moreover, when men are lifted into Christ and share His
Spirit, they share His sufferings and His task. In a profound sense
they are called to know 'the fellowship of his sufferings', 2 to
'suffer with him that they may be glorified together', 3 or to make
up that which was lacking in the sufferings of Christ, 4 entering
into His agony for the world and taking the burden of the world's
need upon them, and becoming the instruments whereby His
work for all men becomes known to all. 5

Here again we have something that links closely with Old
Testament thought. The Servant was both Israel and a represen-
tative of Israel in whom its mission should be supremely expressed.
Yet that mission was still the mission of Israel, to which all were
summoned. And He in Whom the individual hope became
realized and Who was the supreme Servant of the Lord, lifted
His followers to share His mission, so that the Church was
missionary from the start, and was in a real sense the extension
of the personality of its Lord, the body of Christ. The Servant
narrowed down from Israel to Christ, to open out then to the
New Israel that is identified with Him in love for God and for
men, and that shares something of the very agony of the Cross
in its yearning for the salvation of the world.

Again, as in the Old Testament the act of God in history,
whereby Israel was delivered from Egypt, preceded Israel's
committal of herself to Him in the Covenant, so here the historical
act which is the basis of salvation, the death of Christ, precedes
our committal of ourselves to Him in faith. We have an event of
history, yet more than an event of history. We have a revelation

1 R.om. viii. 10. 2 Phil. iii. 10. s Rom. viii. 17

4 Col. i. 2,4. Cf. 2 Cor. i. 5. On Col.i. 24 cf. J. B. lightfoot, Epistles to the Colosstans
and Philemon, 1900, pp. 103 ff., where the view that the meaning is *the sufferings imposed
by Christ', or 'sufferings endured for Christ's sake* is rejected, and where it is maintained
that the meaning is 'the sufferings which Christ endured*. C. Masson, U&pitre de S. Paul
aux Colosstens, 1950, p. 115, says the thought of this verse is quite alien to Paul, and
maintains that we have here an interpolated passage from the hand of the author of the
epistle to the Ephesians.

fi Cf. A. Schweitzer, op. *., pp. 141 ST., on this aspect of Paul's thought.

145

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the heart of God and of the need of man, and an enduring
symbol which rests securely on history. We may respond to the
revelation of the divine love with faith, but the revelation is
the basis of our response. 'We love him because he first loved
us/ 1 The initiative was God's, and it was an initiative expressed
on the plane of history. "When we respond in faith, the New
Covenant becomes real for us in our experience. When Jeremiah
spoke of the New Covenant he said it was to be written on the
tables of men's hearts. 2 It was to be a covenant with the house of
Israel, yet its law was to be inscribed on the individual hearts of
men and not on external tables of stone. It would belong to the
very texture of their personality, yet they would not cease to
belong to a community, and Jeremiah was far from preaching an
arid individualism. Here in the New Testament the New Coven-
ant is expressed in terms of union with Christ, whereby He lives
in the heart. Its law is graven in the substance of personality, for
He is its law. The covenant of faith in Him is the response to the
achieved act of God in Christ, and on man's side it consists in
the yielding of the entire being unto God. It is a covenant -which
is unbreakable from God's side, as was the old Covenant of Sinai.
It is formed to be an eternal covenant, 3 laying upon man the
eternal bond of obedience and bringing to him the eternal gift
of God's blessing. Nevertheless, like the old Covenant, it may
be broken from man's side. And when he breaks it, it is broken.
The covenant is trampled underfoot and God Himself is spurned. 4
For no man can continue to live in the Covenant, with Christ
as the spring of his life and the treasure of his heart, who will have
none of Christ and His way. 5 All the message of the Old Testa-
ment about the obligations of the Covenant is here relevant.
When it found no response in obedience it was broken, and
though God in His grace might still seek to renew it, rising up
early and sending His servants the prophets to men, they who
broke it had no claim upon Him, but stood outside the Covenant
until they brought their response. The New Covenant, like the

1 1 Jn. iv. 19. 2 Jer. xxxi. 31 jBT. * Heb. xiii. 20.

6 Heb. vi6.

146

THE CROSS

old, is inviolable from God's side, but is violable from man's.
The grace of God is never indifferent to man's response.

It is further vital to remember that all this is not just a weaving
together of Old Testament strands of thought into a pattern of
fancy. It is the expression of the experience of men in relation to
a historical person and the event of history that His death marked.
In the Old Testament the Suffering Servant was a concept; in
the New a figure of history, Who gathered these strands together
to Himself and gave them meaning in the context of human
experience.

It is not supposed that a complete interpretation of the Cross of
Christ is contained in the foregoing pages. To offer such is far
from our present purpose. All that has been attempted here is
to illustrate the unity of the Bible with reference to the Cross,
and to emphasize that to apprehend all its significance we must
not limit ourselves to this or that aspect of New Testament
thought, but must find a place for it all. There are many sides
of that thought which have not been here touched upon, and
which could only be dealt with if a whole volume were devoted
to the theme- It must not be supposed that they are implicitly
rejected because unmentioned here, where our aim is not to
expound the significance of the Cross, but to underline the ties
which bind the two Testaments together, and to say that any
interpretation which ignores those ties does less than justice to
the New Testament, and fails to perceive that the New Testament
is but a part of the Biblical revelation that includes both Testa-
ments. In particular, the sacrificial interpretation of the Cross,
which is deeply inscribed in the New Testament but which has
been widely ignored or rejected in modern thought, ceases to
involve unworthy ideas of God and becomes of rich significance,
once it is studied in the light of Old Testament teaching. It avoids
a merely declarative view of the Cross, which leaves a man's
salvation still to be achieved by himself, and equally so objective
a view that the spirit of him who is saved is of no consequence.
Subjective and objective factors belong together here as in so
much else, and grace and faith are both involved. With God is

147

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

the initiative in grace, yet the divine grace is impotent until it
firing its response in faith. In that moment its power is released,
and he who is saved does not preen himself on the potency of
his faith, but glories in the power of God which he experiences
within himself.

It has been observed above that in modern times it has some-
times been argued that the Old Testament should be abolished,
at least on the Mission Field, and the Churches of India and
China should be encouraged to find in the Scriptures of their
ancient faiths the preparation for Christianity. While all sym-
pathetic study of other religions is to be welcomed, and a merely
negative attitude to them is to be deprecated, it is certain that
only the Old Testament could provide the background for the
understanding of the Cross as it is set forth in the New Testament.
It would be unfair to seek to deprive any Church of this. To teach
it to understand the Old Testament may be hard, but it is richly
rewarding, and understanding of the New is at the same time
deepened and enriched. At home not a few have given up the
effort to understand the Old Testament, to the impoverishment
of their grasp of the New, and this in turn leads to a selective use
of the New Testament. The Old Testament provides the necessary
background of the New Testament, and makes imperative the
preservation of grace and faith in our interpretation of the New.
There is a wholeness in the teaching of the Bible, which should
guard us against the one-sided emphasis to which we so often
incline, and nowhere more disastrously than in relation to the
Cross. Nowhere in the New Testament is it taught that the Cross
operates independently of belief; and if it were the Old Testament
would rise up to condemn it. The Cross is the power of God,
but the power of God unto every one that believeth, 1

1 Rom. i. 16,

148

VI
THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

OUR final study is of the Christian sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord's Supper in the light of the aspects of Biblical thought
which have engaged our attention. Here we come to what ought
most to unite Christians, but -what in fact most divides them, and
-what in earlier days could only be discussed with violence and
sometimes abuse. At first sight it might appear to some readers
that we are merely following the pattern of the Baptist preacher
in the story, whose last division of every sermon, no matter
-what the text might be, was always: 'Finally, rny brethren, a few
words about baptism'. The Christian sacraments belong so wholly
to the New Testament that they would seem to have no place
in a study of the unity of the Bible. Moreover, it can hardly be
claimed here, as it has been claimed in relation to the Work of
Christ, that we have the response to hopes that are set forth in
the Old Testament. For apart from such typological arguments
as the claim that the crossing of the Red Sea was a prophecy
of baptism, 1 there can be no claim, to find prophecies of the
sacraments in the Old Testament. It has been said in a former
chapter that while that kind of argument may sometimes have a
certain homiletical value, it has no logical value and is not
appealed to in our study. It is wholly different from those
recurring patterns in which the signature of God may be found,
to which attention has been drawn. Some Roman Catholic
writers find in the book of Malachi a prophecy of the Mass, 2 but

1 So J. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, E. Tr. by H. Beveridge, ii, 1869, p.
517; and, most recently, O. Cullmann, Die Tauflehre des Neuen Testaments, 1948, pp.
40 , E. Tr. by J. K. S. Reid, 1950, pp. 45, 47. Cf. I Cor. x. I , where in a rabbinical
manner Paul uses the word baptism, of the passing through the Red Sea, but is really
concerned to stress the contrast between that crossing and baptism, and to urge that the
example of the Israelites who came out of Egypt is not to be followed by the Church,
since it was an example of disobedience.

2 Mai. i. ii. Cf. C. Lattey, The Book qfMalachy, 1934, pp. xixflf., esp. p. xxiii: 'If all
the points of the prophecy be taken into careful account, it will be seen that it is fulfilled

149

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

again it is not on that ground that the sacraments are brought in
here. They are included because they must be, because they are
only to be understood in the light of Biblical thought as a "whole,
and because those aspects of the unity of the Bible to which we
have given attention are vital for their understanding. Though
they are Christian sacraments, fundamental Biblical principles
which run all through both Testaments cannot be forgotten in
their interpretation.

Actually the writer would expose himself to reproach from
members of other Churches far more than from his own if he were
to leave the sacraments without consideration. For it is common
to connect baptism with circumcision, and to define its signifi-
cance with reference to the significance of circumcision. It is
therefore important to ask whether this is a mark of the unity
of the Bible, and whether the old meaning is expressed with a
new form. Moreover, where the sacrament of the Lord's Supper
is interpreted as a sacrifice it is linked with the sacrifices of the
Old Testament, and so brought into connection with Biblical
thought as a whole. The sacrificial interpretation of this sacrament
is not characteristic of the Baptist Church, and therefore attention
to this subject is demanded by claims made elsewhere, and not by
the writer's own Church. It is, indeed, probable that most

in the holy sacrifice of the Mass* . . . Nothing else can be said to fulfil this prophecy/
C the present water's Israel's Mission to the World, 1939, p. 31: "The prophet is here
claiming for Yahweh worship that is not offered in His name, worship that is offered
to other gods. He is claiming that men who did not call themselves worshippers of
Yahweh were really worshipping Him, that worship offered to idols could be accepted
by Yahweh as offered to His name.* Similarly S. R. Driver, The Minor Prophets (Cent.B.),
ii, 1906, p. 304: 'The passage is a tribute to the truer and better side of heathen religion,
a recognition of the fact that "in every nation he that feareth God, and worketh righteous-
ness, is acceptable to Him" (Acts x. 35).' With this interpretation cf. Tosephta Sanhednn
xiii, 2: 'There must be righteous men among the heathen who have a share in the world
to come" (E. Tr. by H. Danby, Tractate Sanhednn, Mtshnah and Tosefta, 1919, p. 122).
For a different interpretation of the passage in Malachi, cf- J. M. Powis Smith, The Book
ofMalachi (I.C.C.), 1912, pp. 30 It should be added that the interpretation of the passage
in relation to the Christian, sacrament is very ancient, and appears already in Didache
adv. 3 (c J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. byj. R. Harmer, 1891, pp. 224, 234),
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho xli, cxvii (cf. P.G., vi, 1884, cols. 564, 745 ff, E. Tr.
by A. Lukyn Williams, 1930, pp. 81 f., 241 f.), and Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV, xvu.
5 (c P.G., vii, 1882, cols. 1023 E. Tr. by A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, The
Writings of Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, i, 1874, PP- 43 o f.; ed. W. W.
Harvey, IV, xxix. 5, xxx, c S. Irenaei Libras auinque adversus Haereses, 11, 1857, pp. 199 ).

150

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

Baptists would say that the sacraments have no direct links with
the Old Testament, since they would repudiate both of the
claims just mentioned, and would put no similar claims drawn
from the Old Testament in their place. It is, therefore, necessary
first to examine these claims, and then to show in what sense
the context of Biblical thought as a whole may be found illumin-
ating for the understanding of these sacraments.

For the discussion of the origin of Christian baptism various
rites have to be considered. 1 In the first place there were Jewish
lustrations. These are referred to in the Old Testament, and were
designed to cleanse the body of ritual pollution. They had to be
performed on a variety of ordinary occasions. They cannot be
compared with the Christian rite of baptism, since they were
private rites which had to be repeated on many occasions, whereas
baptism is an unrepeatable ceremony which is administered and
witnessed. Nevertheless it is probable that Jewish lustrations have
some historical connection with Christian baptism to the extent
that the form of the ceremony developed out of the form of the
lustrations.

Next there was Jewish proselyte baptism. It is disputed how
far we can accept this as older than Christian baptism, 2 but the
evidence, though less full than might have been desired, points

1 C the writer's paper 'Jewish Proselyte Baptism and the Baptism of John', H.U.C.A.,
srv, 1940, pp. 313 fF, and *The Origin and Meaning of Baptism', B.Q , xi, 1942-45, pp.

2 S. Zeitlin maintains that Jewish proselyte baptism was not practised before A.D. 65,
though he holds that it is older than Christian baptism (cf H.U.C.A., i, 1924, pp. 357 C,
/JJ.L., Hi, 1933, pp. 78 f.; cf. J.Q.R., N.S. xiv, 1923-24, pp. 131 ). This view involves
so great a scepticism towards the New Testament evidence that it is unlikely to be
accepted, and L. Fmkelstein has exposed its difficulties (JJB.L.> hi, 1933, pp. 203 ff.; cf.
also A. Buchler, J.Q.R., N.S. xvii, 1926-27, p. 15 n., against whom cf. Zeitlm, Historical
Study of the Canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1933, pp. 33 n.). H. A. W. Meyer
declared that 'the baptism of proselytes . . . did not anse until after the destruction of
Jerusalem* (Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Gospel of Matthew, E. Tr. by P. Christie
and F. Crombie, 1877, p. 109). Many writers have held that Jewish proselyte baptism
was copied from the Christian rite. So M. Schneckenburger, L ber dc& Alter derjudischen
Prosetytentaufe und deren Zusammenhang mit dem johanneischen und chnsthchen Ritus, 1828.
This view is generally abandoned, despite the absence of positive evidence, since it is
improbable that Judaism would have adopted a practice from the Christian Church.
So, already, A. Calmet, Commentaire htteral stir tons les livres de VAncien et du Nouveatt
Testament, vii, 1726, p. 288. J. Thomas, however, still thinks it is improbable that any
rite of proselyte baptism was generally recognized amongst the Jews before the end of
the first century A.D. Cf. Le Motwement Baptiste en Palestine et Syrie, 1935, p. 364.

151

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

to the probability that it is older. 1 It doubtless sprang from the
background of the ordinary lustrations, but it was different in
significance. It was concerned with a spiritual experience, and
not with physical impurity. It was therefore symbolic rather than
cleansing in itself, and it marked the experience of conversion
from paganism to Judaism. Moreover, it was a sacrament and not
merely a lustration. 2 It was an adniinistered and a witnessed rite,
which was performed once for all, and it involved a clear recog-
nition by die person baptized of the significance of the act. 3

1 This is the view of W. Brandt (Die judischen Baptismen, 1910, pp. 58 ), W. Heit-
miiller (R.G G , 1st ed. v, 1913, col 1088; so also E. StaufTer, ibid., 2nd ed. f v, 1931, col.
1003), J. Coppens (S.D.B., i, 1928, col. 893), and the view for which the writer argued
in H.U.C.A., xv, 1940, pp. 314 flf., though without claiming more than probability for
it. Cf. I. Abrahams, Studies m Pharisaism and the Gospels, i, 1917, p 36; G. F. Moore,
Judaism, iii, 1930, pp. 109 f.; W. F. Hemington, The New Testament Doctrine of Baptism,
1948, p. 4; T. W. Manson, 5-/.T., H, 1949, p. 392 n. Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, i, 1922, p. 103, say that the beginnings of
proselyte baptism are certainly pre-Christian. For some criticism of E. Schiirer's a priori
argument for this view (cf. G.J.V., 4th ed., in, 1909, pp. 181 fF, E. Tr., n, li, 1890, pp.
319 f), endorsed by A. Plummer (in Hastings's DJ3., i, 1898, p 2404) and I. Abrahams
(foe. dt.}, cf. H.U.C.A., xv, 1940, pp. 315 f, where the surviving evidence is reviewed.
F- Gavin, The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments, 2nd ed,, 1933, p. 85, says;
'The usage grew up naturally and inevitably, beginning possibly earlier but certainly
by the second century B.C.*

a Bousset-Gressmann, Die Religion desjudentums im spathellemstischen Zeitalter t 3rd ed.,
1926, p. 199, deny that it was a sacrament, and so Oesterley and Box, The Religion and
Worship of the Synagogue, 1911, p. 286, while I, Abrahams, op. cit , p. 42, and J. Bonsirven,
Le Judaistne palestimen, i, 1934, p- 30, maintain that it was. Here it is probable that the
word sacrament has different meanings with different writers It is not probable that
the Jews thought the act of baptism conveyed grace to the convert merely ex opere
operate, and such a view would show degeneration from the teaching of the Old Testa-
ment in relation to all rites. Nevertheless the Jews did believe that baptism could be
*the channel of supernatural grace to him whose spiritual condition made him the fit
recipient of that grace* (H.U.C-A , xv, 1940, p. 328), and those who hold a similar view
of Christian baptism will not deny the use of the word sacrament. Cf. also F. Gavin,
op, at. where tie first chapter is devoted to a defence of the thesis that Judaism had
sacraments, though a sacramental doctrine was implicit, and not explicit. He says. *The
essential germinal principles of a sacramental outlook on the universe "were not only
tolerated by Judaism, but even lay intimately at its centre* (p. 23).

* Three witnesses were required (cf. T.B. Kiddushin 62b, ed. L. Goldschmidt, v, 1912,
p. 915). They had to be satisfied that the motives of the convert were worthy (T.B.
Yebamoth 473, ed. Goldschmidt, iv, 1922, pp. i6o; Gerim i. 3, ed. M. Higger, 1930,
Hebrew part, p. 69, English part, p. 48), and during the ceremony they had to reate
to him some of the laws of the faith he was embracing (T.B. Yebamoth 4?b, ed. Gold-
schmidt, iv, p. 161). Clearly it was regarded as essential that he should bring the spirit
which made the rite the organ of his entry into Judaism. On the other hand the rite was
not thought to be an empty form, but one charged with divine grace, and at its conclusion
the witnesses hailed his admission into the Jewish faith, which was achieved by the act
when charged with the spirit (c Gerim i, i, ed. Higger, Hebrew part, p. 68, English
part, p. 47).

152

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

While proselyte baptism is not mentioned in the Old Testament,
and all our detailed information about it comes from a time later
than the writing of the New Testament, it is probable that this
rightly reflects the nature of the ceremony and its significance.
It was therefore no formal act, but an act which had to be charged
with meaning by the bringing to it of the spirit which made it
the organ of the spirit of the baptized person. There were, how-
ever, some exceptions to this, at which we shall look later, for
under certain circumstances children, and even unconscious
children, might be baptized. Leaving these out of consideration
for the moment, we observe that this ceremony marked the
entry of aliens into the Covenant, and it required that they should
bring to it the spirit of loyalty and acceptance of its obligations
comparable with that which Israel brought to the Covenant at
its first establishment under Moses.

Thirdly, there was the baptism of John. It is probable that
behind this was the background of Jewish proselyte baptism, and
certain that it lay behind Christian baptism. Like proselyte
baptism this 'was administered and witnessed. It was also the
symbol of a spiritual change and was performed once for all. 1
It is to be distinguished from proselyte baptism in that it was not
the symbol of initiation into Judaism, but was administered to
Jews. Nor was it the symbol of their conversion to another faith,
for they continued to be Jews. It signified their initiation into
the new age that was about to be. 2 There was an eschatological
element in John's teaching. The axe was laid to the root of the

1 On the differences between John's baptism and the baptism of proselytes cf. H.U.C.A.^
xv* PP- 33 f- where reasons are given for the rejection of the common statement that
John's baptism represented a moral purification, whereas proselyte baptism represented
a ritual purification (so A. Plummer, in Hastings's D.B., i, 1898, p. 24ob; E. Schurer,.
G.J.F., 4th ed., ui, p. 185 n., E. Tr., n, ii, p. 324 n.; J. Armitage Robinson, EB., i, 1899,.
col. 472; M.-J. Lagrange, VEvangile de Jesus-Christ, 1936, p. 59, where it is mistakenly-
said tiiat baptism preceded circumcision; J. Coppens, S.D.B., i, cols. 893 ).

*J. Coppens, loc. cit. y rightly perceived this, observing of John the Baptist that *by
the penitence of which baptism was the symbol, he prepared Israelites for the imminence-
of the messianic kingdom*. Cf. H. G. Marsh, The Origin and Significance of the New
Testament Baptism, 1941, pp. 23 rT.; W. F. Hemington, op. tit., p. 17; J. Schneider, Die
Taufe im Netten Testament, 1952, p. 23; also J. Thomas, op. dt. t p. 86, and A. Schweitzer,.
The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle, E. Tr. by "W. Montgomery, 1931, pp. 230 rT. In the
latter the eschatological significance of Christian baptism is also emphasized.

153

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

tree, 1 and the old world was passing away and a new world
about to be born. That new world was the long predicted
Kingdom of God, and John's first recorded word was a pro-
mise that that Kingdom was now nigh at hand. 2 By repentance
men were called to prepare themselves for that Kingdom,
and to signify by baptism that repentance and their readiness
to be the children of the Kingdom. There is no evidence that
John baptized children, and it is hard to suppose that he baptized
infants.

Christian baptism has behind it the background of John's
baptism, though its significance was different from that of John's.
It signified admission to the Kingdom of God, indeed, but also
a relation to Christ which was other than that of John's baptism.
To that significance we shall come later. The New Testament
records that during our Lord's ministry baptism was already
practised, though He Himself did not baptize, but only His
disciples. 3 "We find baptism practised by the Early Church from
the beginning, 4 and since John's baptism was not accepted as
sufficient, 5 it is clear that Christian baptism was differentiated
firom it.

Not seldom Christian baptism has been linked with Jewish
proselyte baptism in order to justify the baptism of infants. 6
It is undeniable that under certain circumstances children were
baptized in the Jewish rite. Yet it is significant that those circum-
stances were entirely different from those which commonly
attend infant baptism in most branches of the Christian Church
"which practice this rite. For according to the Jewish rule, when

1 Matt. lii. 10; Luke iii. 9,

2 Matt. iii. I.

*Jn. iv. i. W. F. Remington, op. at, 9 p. 30, says: 'There is no other evidence in the
Gospels that Jesus used the rite during his ministry. In view of the complete silence
of the Synoptists, it is not surprising that some have doubted the reliability of this piece
of Johanmne tradition. A closer examination, however, suggests that it may well be
trustworthy.' Cf. the full and careful discussion in H. G. Marsh, op. cit. t pp. 109 fif

4 Acts li. 41, viii. 12 f., 16, 38, ix. 18, x. 48, xvi. 15, 33, etc.
6 Acts xix. 3 ff.

5 So still H. G. Marsh, op. cit., p. 176; W. F. Remington, op. cit. f p. 131. J. Schneider,
Die Taufe im Neuen Testament, 1952, p. 40, observes that despite formal links with
proselyte baptism, Christian baptism is fundamentally so different that the argument from
the one to the other is invalid,

154

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

parents were converted they and their children were given
proselyte baptism, 1 but children born after the conversion did
not receive baptism. 2 It was purely a conversion rite. It can there-
fore afford no support for the practice of baptizing the children
of those who stand within the Covenant at the time of their birth,,
and still less for the practice of indiscriminate baptism of children, 3 "
which is arousing so much concern today in some paedobaptist
Churches. 4

Hence resort is commonly had to the Jewish rite of circum-
cision. 5 This is a totally different rite, both in its significance and.
its subjects, from any of the other rites at which we have looked.
No Jew could possibly confuse circumcision with ordinary

1 T.B. Ketuboth na, ed. Goldschmidt, iv, 1922, p. 488. The children retained!
the right to renounce on attaining maturity the engagements entered into on their
behalf.

2 T.B. Yebamoth ySa, ed. Goldschmidt, iv, 1923, p. 280.

8 Cf. Cyprian, Epistle bdv (to Fidus), 2 (Opera omnia, ed. W. Hartel, ii, 1871, p. 71 8) r
"The mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to anyone bom of woman* (E. Tr. by
R. E. Wallis, The Writings of Cypnan, Ante-Nicene Christian Library, i, 1870, p. 196).

4 Cf. J.-D. Benoit, R H.P.R., xvii, 1937, p. 457: 'Amongst the Churches which practise?
infant baptism the legitimacy of this nte is constantly brought into question afresh*;
F. J. Leenhardt, Le Bapteme Chretien, 1946, p. 72: *The baptism of infants can only be
tolerated within a community of faithful believers'; N. P. Williams, The Ideas of the
Fall and of Original Sin, 1927, p. 552: *The indiscriminate baptism of children, with regard
to whom no guarantee exists that they will be trained as Christians, is both useless and to-
be deprecated as a cheapening of the Sacrament*; W. F. Flemington, op. dt., p. 134:
'That there are many Christians today for whom the baptizing of infants offers serious
difficulties can hardly be denied. . . . The reservations about infant baptism are not
confined to the Baptist communion*; E. Brunner, The Divine-Human Encounter, 1944,.
p. 132: "The contemporary practice of infant baptism can hardly be regarded as being:
anything short of scandalous.'

5 So John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, E. Tr. by H.Beveridge, ii, 1869,
pp. 530 f.; cf. esp. p. 531: Everything applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism,
excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony.' Cf. Benoit, loc. dt., p. 4611
'These views on baptism and circumcision do not seem so conclusive to us as to Calvin.*"
Cf. also Leenhardt, op. cit. t pp. 67 f.: "The parallel between circumcision and baptism
is invoked to yield the conclusion that the new sacrament can only succeed the old if it
is practised in the same manner; but Paul here opposes the one sacrament to the others
he shows that baptism, spiritual circumcision, does not stand on the same plane as cir-
cumcision effected by the hands of man.* Cf. also H. Windisch, Z.N.W., xxviii, 1929,.
p. 130. K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, E. Tr. by E. A. Payne,
1948, p. 49, says that the reading of Calvin's chapters on baptism reveals 'where the great
Calvin was sure of his subject and where he obviously was not sure, but visibly nervous,
in a hopelessly confused train of thought, abusing where he ought to inform and when-
he wants to convince, seeking a way in the fog, which can lead him to no goal, because
he has none.' On the question of baptism and circumcision cf. also H. Martin, B.Q., xiv,.
1952, PP- 213 ff.

155

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

lustrations, or with proselyte baptism, 1 nor could it be confused
with John's baptism. It is surely one of the unsolved mysteries of
Christian scholarship why the leap should be made to what is
a completely different and unrelated rite. 2 Circumcision was a
rite which all male Jews had to undergo, either at the time of
their birth or at the time of their conversion to Judaism. It did
not apply to females, and therefore could provide no analogy
to the baptism of girls. 3 Judaism had no sacramental rite, within
all the series at which we have looked, which applied to the
infant daughters of parents who stood within the Covenant
at the time of their birth, and since under such circumstances it
prescribed circumcision and not baptism for boys, it offers no

1 This confusion continues to be a stock argument in the armoury of the Paedobapfcst.
Cf. H. G. Marsh, op. cit. 9 p. 176; W. F. Remington, op. cit., p. 131; O. Cullmann, op.
tit., pp 50 fF., E. Tr., pp. 56 f Cullmann neatly observes that in Judaism *there is both
infant and adult circumcision, and both adult and infant proselyte baptism' (E. Tr.
p. 56), thus joining together two quite different Jewish ntes to conceal the fact that neither
offers any parallel to the Christian rite. It is only by invoking now one and now the
other of these diverse rites that they offer specious support to the case for paedobaptism.
G. H. W. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 1951, p 83, observes that 'Circumcision, other
than the "true circumcision of the spirit" ... is not likened to Baptam by the New
Testament writers, but contrasted with it*.

2 By the third century it is dear that there were some who regarded the baptism of
infants as parallel to the arcumcision of infants, for Cypnan, though he strongly supported
infant- baptism, objected to this analogy. He held that baptism should not be deferred
till the eighth day, as the false analogy would suggest, but should take place as soon
as possible. At the same time Cypnan held no doctrine of baptismal regeneration, but
denied that a new-born child is unclean, saying that to kiss such a child is to kiss the
hands of God. Cf. Epistle bav (to Kdus), 3, 5 (ed. W. Haxtel, pp. 717 f, E Tr. by
R. E. Wallis, pp 196 fF.). Gregory Nazienzen, on the other hand, favoured the defer-
ment of baptism till the age of about three, when the children would be able to under-
stand the rudiments of the faith. He adduces drcumcision on the eighth day, however,
to justify earlier baptism if the children were in any danger. That this is not to equate
baptism with circumcision is clear, since only exceptionally did he wish baptism to be
Administered without a conscious, though incipient, faith Cf. Oration on Holy Baptism
xxviii (P.G., xxxvi, 1885, col. 400, E. Tr by C. G. Browne and J. E Swallow, in Nicene
-and Post-Nicene Fathers, vii, 1894, P- 37)-

1 Culknan once more confuses the issues by speaking of die affinity of Jewish proselyte
"baptism with circumcision (op. cit., p. 59, E. Tr., p. 65). Both significance and subjects
of the two ntes were different. A Jewish-bom girl underwent neither rite; a Jewish-born
boy was circumcised only; a female proselyte or child of a proselyte was baptized only;
A male proselyte or child of a proselyte was both baptized and circumcised. Clearly tie
two rites had different meanings, whether for males or for females, and it is not legitimate
to equate them in order to yield the conclusion that Christian baptism is nghtly admin-
istered to all the four separate classes above-mentioned, including the class to which
neither nte was administered. "Where the premises are wrong, the conclusions are not
secure, and, as has been said above, no Jew could confuse circumcision with proselyte
baptism.

156

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

analogy at all for die latter rite. Further, even if circumcision
were allowed to be a true analogy, it would still not justify the
indiscriminate baptism of children. For the Jews only circumcised
those infant boys who were born within the Covenant. The
Church claims to be the New Israel, heirs of the Covenant and
the promises, but it is nowhere taught that those who belong
neither to the Israel according to the flesh nor to the Church
stand within the Covenant. When the children of such are bap-
tized no remote parallel can be found either in Jewish proselyte
baptism or in Jewish circumcision. 1

It is often claimed that the authority of Paul can be invoked in
support of the alleged analogy. For he says: 'In whom (i.e. in
Christ) ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made
with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the
circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism,
wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the
working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you,
being dead through your trespasses and the untircumcision of
your flesh, you did he quicken together with him, having forgiven
us all our trespasses/ 2 Here there is no suggestion that the subjects
of baptism and the subjects of circumcision are the same, or that
the two rites are in any way parallel in their significance. Indeed
Paul specifically mentions faith, which was not required of infants
who were circumcised. 3 All he is saying is that union with Christ
does away with the necessity for circumcision, 4 just as elsewhere

1 C G. H. W. Lampe, The Seal of the Spint, 1951, p. 93: 'Considered individually,
these rites* i.e. proselyte baptism and circumcision *are quite unlike Christian initia-
tion. Both in their outward aspect and in their inner significance they Ke poles apart
from the Christian rite which springs from the Messianic Baptism of Jesus.'

2 Col. ii. i iff.

* Similarly Justin Martyr, First Apology bti (ed. B. L. Gildersleeve, 1877, p. 57: P.G.,
vi, 1884, col. 430), says: 'As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and
say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly ... are brought by us where
there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselve*
regenerated* (E. Tr. by M. Dods, in Ante-Nicene Christian Library, 1870, p. 59).

4 Cf. H. Martin, Theology, liii, 1950, p. 302: 'St. Paul tells his readers that they do not
need the circumcision of the flesh, because they have received the circumcision of the
heart. The bodily nte of circumcision is the type of this spiritual circumcision, tihis
cleansing of the heart/ J. C. Fenton, ibid., p. 386, claims that this passage can be used to
connect baptism and circumcision as comparable rites, but neglects to show that faith
was a prerequisite in circumcision, as Paul declares it to be here, or to recognize that

157

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

he says: 'Beware of the concision; for we are the circumcision,
who worship by the Spirit of God, and glory in Christ Jesus, and
have no confidence in the flesh.' x

Moreover, Paul elsewhere uses words very similar to those
quoted above, though without mentioning baptism, when he
says: 'And you did he quicken, when ye were dead through your
trespasses and sins, wherein aforetime ye walked according to
the course of this world . . . But God, being rich in mercy, for
his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead
through our trespasses, quickened us together with Christ . . .
and raised us up with him/ 3 He then goes on to speak of Jew and
Gentile, circumcised and uncircumcised, being reconciled in one
body in Christ. It is therefore clear that he regarded the Christian
experience of Christ as something that transcended circumcision
and uncircumcision, not something that was parallel to the
former. This is also clear from the fact that in these passages the
Apostle is thinking of grown men, who had known the lusts and
sins of human life, and not of new-born babes. 3

it is this false analogy which has led the Church to dispense with faith for what has
become the normal Christian baptism. Martin aptly cites (p. 423) the comments on
this passage of J. B. Lightfoot (St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon, 1900,
p. 181) and A S. Peake (The Expositor's Creek Testament, ed. by "W. R. Nicoll, in, 1912,
p. 524). Peake says: The Aposde does not merely leave them with the statement that
they have been made full in Christ, which rendered circumcision unnecessary, but adds
that they have already received circumcision, not material but spiritual . . . This was
their conversion, the inward circumcision of the heart, by which they entered on the
blessings of the New Covenant. The outward sign of this is baptism . . . But it cannot
be identified with it, for it is not made with hands.'

1 Phil. iii. 2 Cf. GaL v. 6. C also Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho xliu (P,G , vi,
1884, col 568): *We who by Him drew near to God did not receive this arcumcision
according to the flesh, but one that is spiritual, which Enoch and those like him kept.
But we received it by our baptism, since we had become sinners* (E. Tr. by A. Lukyn
Williams, 1930, pp. 84 ). Here there is no connecting of the baptism of infants with tie
circumcision of infants, but the claim that Christians have no need of circumcision, since
they have received grace through the sacrament of baptism.

2 Eph. ii. i ff*.

Speaking generally of the New Testament references to baptism, N. P. Williams
says that they 'assume that its recipients are adults, and that the dispositions required
in them are those of conscious and deliberate renunciation of sin and idols, and of personal
faith in and allegiance to Christ* (The Ideas of the Fall and of Original Sin> 1927, p. 550).
C N. H. Snaith, I believe in . . ., 1949, p no: 'In the first days of the Christian Church
. . . the significance of the rite was clear. It was baptism of believers and it was baptism
by immersion. The condition for the administration of the rite was confession of faith,
and it marked the recognition of the convert as a member of the Church.' J. Hiring,
in Aux Source* de la Tradition Chr&enne (Goguel Festschrift), 1950, pp. 95 ff., has recently

158

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

It must further be remembered that at the Council of Jerusalem
the question whether it was necessary for Gentiles to be circum-
cised was discussed. 1 The question at issue was not whether
baptism was a substitute for circumcision, but whether Gentiles
should be required to be both circumcised and baptized. It seems
to have been taken for granted that Jewish Christians would be
both baptized and circumcised, as they long continued to be. The
two rites were therefore clearly seen to be quite distinct in their
significance and their subjects. Hence, immediately after the
account of Paul's victory at the Council of Jerusalem, we read
that he insisted on the circumcision of Timothy, whose mother
was a Jewess. 2 No confusion between the two rites existed in his
mind. 3

It is inevitable that when the discussion of the issue is governed
by a false analogy, a different significance must be attached to the
sacrament from that which is given to it in the New Testament.
The writer is here in the fullest agreement with Professor T. "W.
Manson, when he says: *For the full understanding of most of the
central things in the Christian religion we have to look first and
foremost to the New- Testament teaching in its setting, and that
means taking account of what went before in the Old Testament
and the belief and practice of Judaism, and of what came after in
the belief and practice of the Church'. 4 So far as the practice of the
Church is concerned, it can neither be proved nor disproved by
specific references in the New Testament that the Early Church
practised infant baptism, 5 and the common invoking of the

based on Matt. xvm. 10 an argument for infant baptism. Here it is to be observed that
if the argument is valid it would apply to infants mdiscriminately, since there is no
evidence that the children referred to were the children of our Lord's disciples. There is
no suggestion of baptism at all in the passage, however.

1 Acts xv. 5. 2 Acts xvi. 3.

3 Cf F. Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith, E. Tr. by H. R. Mackintosh and J. S
Stewart, 1928, p. 660: 'It is going much too far to assert that baptism took the place of
circumcision . . . Baptism was instituted quite independently of circumcision; more-
over, circumcision was not put a stop to by baptism.*

*Cf. SJT,ii, 1949, P- 392.

6 Cf. T. W. Manson, 5J.T., u, 1949, p. 403; J--D. Benoit, R.H.P.R., xvu, 193?, P-
461. Cf. also F. Schleiermacher, Tlie Christian Faith, E. Tr., p. 634: 'Every trace of infant
baptism which people have professed to find in die New Testament must first be inserted
there.'

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Jewish idea of the solidarity of the family is completely irrelevant, 1
since in proselyte baptism, which could provide the only possible
analogy for the baptism of households, subsequently born children
were regarded as so completely within the solidarity of the family
that they did not need to be baptized. Analogies that are not
analogous prove nothing. The practice of the baptism of children
born to those who stand within the Covenant is not paralleled in
the case of proselyte baptism; still less is the practice of the baptism
of those children who are not born within the Covenant, save
when their baptism takes place at the same time as that of their
parents. Yet even then account must be taken of the different
theological significance of proselyte baptism and Christian baptism
before the analogy could be relied on. The significance of circum-
cision is so completely different from the significance of Christian
baptism that no analogy here could be valid anyhow, but since
the practice was in no sense parallel to that which holds in
paedobaptist sections of the Church there is no analogy to claim
validity. A rite which was undergone only by boys born within
the Covenant provides no parallel to a rite undergone by boys and
girls, whether born within the Covenant or not. To turn now to
circumcision and now to proselyte baptism for an analogy is even
less satisfactory, when the two rites were so totally different in
subjects and significance, and when neither provides any analogy
for the case of children born without the Covenant, save on the
occasion of the conversion of their parents. It is surely high time
these misleading analogies were dismissed in the interests of clear
thinking.

So far as the practice of the post-apostolic Church is concerned,
it is certain that infant baptism appeared quite early, though it

1 So J. V. Bardet, in Hastings^ EJR..E., it, 1909, p. 379a; H. G. Marsh, op. dt., p. 176;
W. F. Hemington, op. cit. t p. 131; O. Cullmann, op. tit., p. 39, E. Tr., p 45. Cf. H. H.
Rowley, J.r.S., xliv, 1943, p. 81, where it is pointed out that the doctrine of the solidarity
of the family meant that children born after their mother's baptism were deemed to
be included in that act and so were not baptized. Bardet says that 'what we know of the
Jewish practice touching proselytes which usually regulated practice among Gentile
Christians makes it most improbable that Christianity here introduced any novel usage/
without apparently realizing that his argument would mean that there was no baptism
of the children of believers.

160

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

was not unchallanged, 1 and it is well known that there was a time
when ideas of baptismal regeneration 2 caused baptism to be
deferred until the end of life. 3 The question cannot therefore be
settled by appealing to the practice of the New Testament 4 or of
the Early Church, and it is far more important to approach it in
terms of Biblical thought, and of the significance -which the New
Testament attaches to the rite. 5 It is precisely here that the issue

1 Cf. F. J. Leenhardt, E.Th.R., xxv, 1952, p. 149: 'It is necessary to go to the third
century to find incontestable evidence of the existence of paedobaptism. Remarkably
enough, the first attestation is hostile to the practice, which is opposed as an innovation
without justification'; also Th. Preiss, La Vie en Christ, 1951, p. 133: 'We should never
forget that paedobaptism only became general with Constantino* (Preiss*s essay 'Le
Bapte"me des Enfants* appeared first in Verbum Caro, 1947, pp. 11322, to which die
present writer has had no access, and in German translation in TH.L.Z , Ixxiii, 1948,
cols. 651 flf.) The view of Preiss is that infant baptism is valuable in a Christian family
but has no meaning where there is no serious likelihood of Christian training. Neverthe-
less he thinks it is a good thing that there should be some Christian families which do
not practise infant baptism (op. cit., pp 142 )

2 G. A. Barton, J A.O. S , Ivi, 1936, p. 162, traces the doctrine of baptismal regenera-
tion to an ancient pre-Chnstian thought-pattern. This doctrine is still the official doctnne
of the Church of England, where the priest at the end of the Baptismal Service says 'Seeing
now . . . that this child is regenerate/

3 R E. White, E. T. t li, 1949-50, p. no, observes that 'such giants as Gregory Nanenzen,
Basil, Chrysostom, Ambrose and Augustine were not baptized until they reached man-
hood, although all had Christian mothers*. To these Leenhardt, E Th.R., xxv, 1950,
p. 149, adds Jerome, and cites the remark of F. Lovsky: 'Here indeed are facts more
worthy of comment than the laborious constructions placed on enigmatic texts of
Irenaeus or Clement of Alexandria* (Foi et Vie, March-April 1950, pp. 109 ft; to this
the present writer has had no access).

* Cf. F. J. Leenhardt, Le Bapteme Chretien, pp. 66 ., where it is agreed that Calvin's
attempted demonstration that infant baptism is taught in the Bible is unconvincing, and
maintained that it would be easier to conclude that infants are pure and therefore in no
need of baptism. Cf. also E.Th.R., xxv, 1950, p. 144, where Leenhardt says that 'Calvin
professed a doctrine of the sacrament formally at variance with that which supported
paedobaptism; nevertheless he retained paedobaptism. . . . Calvin avoided the contra-
diction, as will be shown, by emptying infant baptism of its authentic sacramental
character/ Cf. ibid , p. 201.

6 The writer is here in the fullest agreement with O. Cullmann: 'It can be decided
only on the ground of New Testament doctrine: Is infant Baptism compatible with the
New Testament conception of the essence and meaning of Baptism?' (Baptism in the
New Testament, E. Tr. by J. K. S. Reid, 1950, p. 26). The German text stands in Dte
Tauflehre des Neuen Testaments, 1948, pp. 21 f. (of this work there is also a French edition,
Le Bapteme des Enfants, translated by J.-J. von Allmen, 1948). Cf. also J.-D. Benoit,
loc. cit.i 'We must see if, apart from precise passages, this baptism accords with the
fundamental teachings of Scripture, if it agrees with the great Christian affirmations,
yea more, if it is in some "way postulated by them as a logical necessity/ Cf. B.Q., xi,
1942-45, p. 316, where the present writer has said: c lf it could be proved conclusively
that in the first century A.D. infants were baptized, that would not justify a practice that
was not in accord with the New Testament teaching of the meaning of baptism; and
if it could be conclusively proved that in the first century A.D. infants were not baptized,

161

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

belongs to the subject of the present lectures. Principles which
have been seen to be constant throughout the Bible, though
applied to a variety of situations, are found to be constant here,
and cannot be abandoned without disloyalty to Biblical thought
as a whole, and not merely to this or that text in the New
Testament.

Professor Oscar Culhnann has recently stressed the importance
of faith in relation to baptism, but more particularly the faith that
follows baptism. 1 So far it is easy to agree with him, for it would
be hard to find anyone who would argue that faith may be
dispensed with once baptism has been administered. It is to be
noted, however, that Culhnann recognized that those who have
been baptized, whether in infancy or later, may not persist in the
faith. He therefore argues for two quite different sorts of baptism,
which he then subsumes under one by the remarkable supposition
chat God is capable of misleading the Church. He says that before
baptism faith was demanded of those who came as adults from
Judaism or from paganism, but not from those who were of
Christian parentage. 2 The New Testament speaks of one baptism, 3
and it is hard to find any evidence from the New Testament that
faith was not asked of those who were baptized. 4 But worse

that would not of itself rule out the practice, if it accorded with the New Testament
teaching of its essential significance.* With this contrast N. P. Williams, op. cit. 9 p. 552,
where the practice of the Church is appealed to as 'the only, but a sufficient, ground for
affirming the legitimacy of Paedo-baptism'. Also W F. Remington, op at , p. 135
'New Testament statements about baptism cannot all be used in reference to infant
baptism without modification. We must frankly recognize that much harm has been done,
and a superstitious attitude to baptism too often encouraged, because New Testament
language, used originally of believers' baptism, has been applied indiscriminately, as it
stands, to the baptism of infants ' G. H. W Lampe, op dt. y p. 93, says. 'Despite various
possible indications of the existence of infant Baptism in the New Testament, the theology
of Baptism therein presented to us is concerned with the Baptism of adults alone.*

1 Cf. Die Taufiehre des Neuen Testaments, pp. 43 ff., E. Tr., pp, 50 fF. Cf. F. Schleier-
macher, The Christian Faith, E, Tr., p. 630: 'Baptism is received wrongly if it be received
without faith, and it is wrongly given so.' Nevertheless, he justifies infant baptism with
the proviso that 'its proper efficacy is suspended until the person baptized has really
become a believer* (p. 636). Even so, he thinks the practice might be given up without
harm to children since he does not think the rite makes any difference to them (p. 637).
Cf. also the study of the teaching of Martin Luther by P. Althaus, T/j.L.Z., Ixxui, 1948,
cols. 705 fil ^ Cf. op #., p. 46, E. Tr., p. 53. * Eph. iv. 5.

* Cf. G. H. "W. Lampe, Hie Seal of the Spmt, 1951, p. 55. *By virtue of the effective
sign of Baptism, faith of course being always presupposed, the application of the Atone-
ment to the believer implies his forgiveness; Christian Baptism therefore effects the

162

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

follows from this unscriptural view. Professor Cullmann opposes*
the indiscriminate baptism of children, and says: 'It runs contrary
to the meaning it has pleased God to give to Baptism if the
Church undertakes the Baptism of a man indiscriminately, that
is, without any divine sign suggesting the prospect of his perseverance in
Baptism within the community J 1 It might be supposed that if the
sign were genuinely a divine sign it could be relied on, but since
Professor Cullmann agrees that even where what he defines as
divine signs are given they cannot always be relied on, 2 it seems
safer to doubt whether they are correctly so defined than to make
God a deceiver. A theology of baptism which rests on such a
view is certainly not Biblical, and to the writer is far from
satisfying. The divine signs are said to be either faith on the parf
of an adult candidate for baptism or Christian parentage in the
case of an infant. 3 To describe either of these as a divine sign is
remarkable. For while it may be agreed that faith is only possible
by the help of God, and that faith is rightly demanded before
baptism, that faith can only be known to the Church by the

cleansing for which the prophets had hoped.* Leenhardt, op. tit , pp. 70 , controverts
the idea that baptism should follow regeneration or conversion, and says it is the symbol
of the divine wiU to regenerate the believer. Similarly, J. K. S. Reid, E. T , ha, 1949-50,
p. 203, argues that unless baptism precedes faith it 'forfeits all claim to be a genuinely
Christian initiation,* and maintains that the emphasis on surrender as a precondition of
baptism 'assimilates the nte to the secular type of initiation ceremony'. If the rite were
merely declarative, or if it operated independently of the will of the baptized, the words
of E. A. Payne would seem relevant: *It is difficult to see that (it) would not justify that
indiscriminate baptism of Indian villagers with a fire hose of which Karl Barth writes
so scornfully* (S.J.T., iii, 1950, p. 53). It is hard to think that any would advocate such
action, and Reid specifically repudiates it. He insists on the necessity for faith, but says
it is altruistic faith, expressed in the assent of the sponsors. On his view this altruistic
faith must apply equally in the case of adult baptism, or by his own definition there could
only be secular initiation and no Christian baptism. It is surprising to be told that the*
Apostles and the New Testament Church did not administer Christian baptism but only
a secular initiation nte. For it is undeniable that faith preceded baptism ui many of the
recorded cases. P.-H. Menoud, in a study of the Early Church, rightly observes. 'The
Christian life is inaugurated by faith and baptism*. Cf. La Vie de VEghse naissante, 1952,

P-9

1 Op cit., p 44, E. Tr., p. 50.

2 Ibid. Cf. O. C. Quick, The Christian Sacraments, 1937, p. 172 'What cannot at all 1
be verified in experience is the supposition that Baptism in itself makes any such change
in the spiritual condition of an infant as is implied by asserting that it removes once for
all original sin and its hold on the soul'; p. 175: *The spiritual and moral health of so many
of the unbaptized is apparently so superior to that of so many of the baptized that it has
become difficult to allege that even on the whole Baptism makes a conspicuous difference.*"

3 Op. cit., p. 45, E. Tr., p. 51.

163

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

profession of the individual, and this is a human act and not a
divine. The profession may be tested by the Church, but the
recognition that the test may be misleading shows that this too
is a human and not a divine act. The test of parentage is much
more misleading, since this is one that is mechanically applied.
It would be hard to establish the thesis that there is even a human
presumption, let alone a divine sign, that the child of a Christian
will become a genuine believer. It is to be presumed that Stalin
was once baptized, since he entered a theological school, and that
he added the profession of his own faith to Christian parentage.
Yet so httle could any divine sign of his perseverance within the
community be found here that he became the leader of a mihtantly
atheistic party. 1

Moreover, the practice of infant baptism led to what Professor
T. W. Manson calls 'the splitting of the original single rite of
admission into two'. 2 This frankly recognizes that -what the New
Testament means by baptism is the original single rite. It is there-
fore quite inappropriate to attach the name of the original rite to
one of the two parts into which it is split, and that the part which
has the lesser association with New Testament thought on bap-
tism. For here again the analogy is with Jewish practice and not
with Christian. A Jewish boy enters potentially into the covenant
at circumcision, but when he is thirteen years of age he has the
bar mitzvah ceremony whereby he enters of his own volition into
the life and faith of Israel, and is recognized as a loyal child of
Judaism. 3 Of such a ceremony there is no hint in the New Testa-

1 Cf. E. Brunner, The Divine-Human Encounter, 1944, p. 131. 'Most of the contem-
porary neopagans and also most members of atheistic societies have been baptized
as infants.'

2 Cf. 5.J.T., loc. cit., p. 397. G. H. W. Lampe, op. tit, p. 309, says that a doctrine of
confirmation was developed *to rationalize the division of the nte of initiation'. On the
late development of the doctrine of confirmation, and its position in the Anglican Church,
cf. Dom Gregory Dix, The Theology of Confirmation in relation to Baptism, 1946. Here
it is shown how largely the doctrine was determined by the Forged Decretals, through
-Gratian and Peter Lombard (cf. pp 23 ), and added *It is an ironical fact that the
dicta of Pseudo-Isidore . . . continue to be repeated by Reformed Divines with a quite
mediaeval glibness* (p. 25). Dix recognizes that it was motives of practical convenience
which caused the separation of the two halves of the primitive nte (p. 31), and thinks
'the Church can well afford Infant Baptism . . . provided that it is never allowed to be

.thought of as normal* (tbid ).

3 This ceremony is of uncertain date, but piobably quite late, in Judaism.

164

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

merit, and it is alien to its whole thought. 1 Yet it is carried over
into Christianity and confirmation is treated as the completion of
the act of baptism. The innumerable cases where the completion
never takes place in the case of those who are baptized in infancy
give something of the measure of the futility of the 'divine
sign' alleged by Professor Cullmann, and to these must be
added the further numbers of those who after confirmation
fall away. For men to invent something which has no Scriptural
warrant, and then to place on God the responsibility for its
failure by supposing that divine signs have misled them, is
unconvincing in itself and alien to the whole background of
Biblical thought.

What infant baptism is often said to guard is the profound
truth of the prevenient grace of God. 2 Here is an indubitably
Scriptural principle, which has been insisted on again and again
in the present lectures. Unhappily it does not figure in this
connection in the Bible. As Cullmann himself agrees, where an
adult is being baptized faith must precede baptism. 3 In this case,
therefore, the baptism does not declare the prevenient grace of
God, and hence a different significance must be given to baptism
according to whether it is the baptism of a believer or of an infant.
Yet the prevenient grace of God is as much a fact in the one case
as in the other. 4 That prevenient grace is manifested not in the act
of the Church in baptizing, but in the Cross of Christ. Long before
we were born God's love was there manifested, God's claim on us
was made, and the atonement for our sins was achieved. If our
heart does not respond to that love, it is improbable that it will be
moved by the fact that water was sprinkled on us when we were

1 Cf. E. Brunner, The Divine-Human Encounter, p 130: *The statements of the New
Testament about baptism continued to be connected with infant baptism and yet the
bad conscience roused by this identification was soothed by completing baptism with
confirmation, which certainly does not stem from the Bible '

2 Cf. T. W. Manson, loc. dt , pp. 401 ; also Cullmann, op. at , p 43, E. Tr., p. 49.
Cf. too W. F. Hemmgton, op cit , p 137.

3 Op. dt., p. 49, E. Tr , p. 55-

* Cf. G. H. W Lampe, Tlie Seal of the Spirit, p. 57: 'Baptism, whose reception
by the believer is his visible act of trusting response to the prevenient grace of
God in Christ, is a re-presentation of Christ's own Baptism and its application to each
convert.'

165

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

unconscious. 1 If the act of God will not move us to faith, the act
of man is unlikely to do so. The doctrine of the prevenient grace
of God does not need infant baptism to proclaim it, for it has
greater proclamation throughout the Bible. 2

One of the profound truths which we have seen to run all
through the Bible is that rites and ceremonies have no meaning
so long as they are only rites and ceremonies. It is only when they
are the vehicle of the spirit that they have meaning; but when
they are such a vehicle, they become charged with divine power
to bless and enrich. The ceremony of infant baptism cannot be
the vehicle of the spirit of the babe who is baptized. 3 It may have
a meaning and a value so far as the parents and the Church are
concerned, since they can bring the spirit to the ceremony, but
since they are not being baptized and initiated into the Church it
cannot have any truly baptismal significance for them. 4

1 R. S. Franks, History of the Doctnne of the Work of Christ, i, p. 190, notes the dilemma
in which. Abelard was placed by the practice of infant baptism, and cites Loofs (Leitfaden
zum Studtum der Dogmengeschichte, 4th ed., 1906, p. 515) for the view that Abelard's
doctrine could not be carried through without more changes than he was prepared to
make. Abelard's view of the power of the Cross was that it was power to kindle love,
and he was then forced to conclude that forgiveness of sins awaited baptism (cf. PJL.,
dxxviii, 1885, coL 837). In the case of infants, however, where baptism precedes the
awakening of love, he was forced to suppose that remission of sins was independent of
the kindling of love (ibid, col. 838). Once more, therefore, it is found impossible to
give a common significance to infant baptism and believers* baptism, and traditional
practice triumphs over theological consistency.

S J, Barr, S.J.T, iv, 1951, p. 274, ofiers the remarkable argument that the practice
of believers' baptism may obscure the antecedence of Christ's work to faith. Since it
can scarcely be denied that we have many instances of believers* baptism recorded in
the New Testament, this implies a condemnation of apostolic practice and of New
Testament teaching that is quite astonishing. When paedopaptists are driven by their
efforts at rationalization to such lengths, the insecurity of their position is manifest.
Moreover, it remains to be shown how anyone could suppose that his faith in the finished
work of Christ today preceded that finished work.

*C K. Barth, The Teaching of the Church regarding Baptism, E. Tr., p. 41: 'Neither
by exegesis nor from the nature of the case can it be established that the baptized person
ran be a merely passive instrument. Rather it may be shown . . . that in this action
the baptized is an active partner and that at whatever stage of life he may be, plainly no
infans can be such a person.*

4 Cf. what the writer has elsewhere written on the sacrament of Dedication, com-
parable to our Lord's Presentation in the Temple, B.Q., xi, 1942-45, pp. 319 f. For such
a rite New Testament precedent can be found in the example of our Lord; for Confirma-
tion many years after baptism no New Testament precedent can be claimed. Cf. also
N. H. Snaith, I believe in . . ., pp 113 f. F. J. Leenhardt, E.Th.R., xxv, 1950, p. 200,
says: 'On the profit received by the parents, Calvin has something to say; but it is in
respect to them alone that baptism fulfils its function of sign and produces its effects.'

166

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

Professor T. W. Manson says that the practice of believers'
baptism makes the decision of the believer do all that is necessary. 1
If that were so it would deserve to be repudiated, since it would
be directly contrary to teaching which we have seen to belong to
the unity of the Bible. But is it really so? So far as adults are
concerned Professor Cullmann asks for faith, and it is hard to
suppose that Professor Manson would advocate the baptism of
adults without even asking whether they believed or not. If this
is really to eliminate the necessity for God, and to make the
decision of the believer do all that is necessary, it is hard to see
'why faith should be asked in the case of adults any more than
in the case of infants. When Philip said to the Ethiopian eunuch
4 If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest (be baptized)', 2
he was not converting the eunuch's faith into the organ of
salvation. It is true that there is impressive manuscript testimony
in favour of regarding this verse as an addition to the text. 3 Yet
since it is known to have been in existence in the second century, 4
it would still testify to the view of the Early Church that faith
was necessary to baptism, 5 and even earlier we find Paul writing:
'If thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and shalt
believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved'. 6 Similarly in the case of the Philippian gaoler
faith preceded baptism. 7 Surely it is hard to suppose that these
passages mean that the New Testament writers eliminated the

1 Cf. loc. ctt., p. 399- 2 Acts viii. 37.

s For the evidence cf. A. C. Clark, The Acts of the Apostles* 1933, ad. loc. Many modern
editors regard it as unoriginal. So, most recently, F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles,
1951, p. 194.. In R.V. it is relegated to the margin.

4 Cf. Irenaeus, Against Heresies in, xu. 8 (P.G., vii, 1882, cols 901 , E. Tr. by A.
Roberts and W. H. Rambaut, The Writings of Irenaeus, Ante-Nicene Christian Library,
a, 1874, p. 305; ed. W. W. Harvey, HI, xu, 10, c S. Irenaei Libras quinque adversus
Haereses, ii, 1857, p 62). R- B. Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, 3rd ed., 1906, p. 123,
suggests that the verse stood in the original draft of the book, but that St. Luke may have
drawn his pen through it when revising his work, since the profession of faith at baptism
must have been familiar enough to his Christian readers.

5 Similarly Matt, xxviii. 19, with its demand for discipleship before baptism, may be
-appealed to. This verse is also regarded by many scholars as secondary, in view of its
use of a Trinitarian formula, but it is nevertheless valid evidence of the practice of the
Church within the New Testament period. P. W. Evans, Sacraments in the New Testa-
ment, 1946, pp. 9 flf., argues for the probability that we have here a genuine Dominical
word. 6 Rom. x. 9. 7 Acts xvi. 31, 33.

167

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

act of God in salvation and made the decision of the believer do
all that was necessary.

In the previous chapter the necessity to distinguish between the
conditions of salvation and the organ of salvation has been urged.
If faith is the condition it is not to be confused with the organ. If
a man wishes to travel from Manchester to London by train it
is a necessary condition of his journey that he should board the
train, but he would be very foolish if he supposed that his
entering the train would of itself get him to London, and that he
could dispense with the engine. The power that would get him
to London would be the power of the engine; yet it could not
succeed in getting him there if he were not on the train. Few
would be so foolish as to confuse the conditions of transportation
with the organ of transportation. If, then, faith is held to be
necessary to baptism, it does not for one moment imply that
faith is all that is necessary, and that God can be dispensed with,
or that baptism is merely the act of the person who is baptized, or
even of the Church and that person. In the context of Biblical
thought we may say that if baptism is to be charged with meaning
and power it must be both a divine and a human act.

When we approach baptism from the Bible instead of from the
practice of the Church, and ask what it meant in Biblical thought
instead of how we can justify later practice by false analogy and
false charges of unreliability against God, we find the important
passage in Romans vi, to which Baptists always appeal in justi-
fication of immersion as the mode of baptism. With that we are
not concerned here. Far more important is its testimony as to
the significance Paul attached to the rite. That significance is
expressed in terms of death and resurrection. Immersion is* an apt
symbol of this, and Jewish proselyte baptism symbolized death
to the old life and resurrection to the new, while the baptism of
John symbolized the renunciation of the world that was and
entry upon the life of the world that was to be. Here, however,
we have something deeper than this. Paul says: 'Are ye ignorant
that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into
his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism

168

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

into death, that like as Christ was raised from the dead through
the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him by the likeness of his death,
we shall be also by the likeness of his resurrection; knowing this,
that our old man was crucified with him.' 1 Here, it is to be noted y
it is not merely death to the past, or a death that could be compared
with the death of Christ, but a spiritual sharing of His death. 2
Baptism is not a symbol of repentance or of belief, but of union
with Christ in His death and resurrection. 3 "Even so reckon ye
also yourselves*, says Paul below, 'to be dead indeed unto sin, but
alive unto God through our Lord Jesus Christ.' 4

In the previous chapter, when we were examining the signifi-
cance of the Cross, we saw that in the thought of the New
Testament, when seen against the background of the teaching of
the Old Testament, the death of Christ must become the organ
of man's approach to God that it may be the organ of divine

1 Rom. vi. 3 fF. Cf. Cynl of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures xx. 6 (P.G., xxxiii, 1893,
col. 1082, E. Tr. by E. H. Gifford, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vii, 1894, p. 148):
'Let no one suppose that Baptism is merely the grace of remission of sins, or ... of*
adoption; ... it purges our sins, and ministers to us the gift of the Holy Ghost, so
also it is the counterpart of the sufferings of Christ.* Cyril then quotes the passage from
Romans and adds: "These words he spake to some who were disposed to think that
Baptism ministers to us the remission of sins, and adoption, but has not further the
fellowship also, by representation, of Christ's true sufferings.'

2 Writing on I Pet. ii. 24, F. W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter, 1947, p. 124, says:
*The doctrine of baptism as the sacrament through which we enter into Christ's experience
of death and resurrection is again brought to remembrance The ultimate meaning of
the cross is realized in us only when we die to the old life . . . and enter, united with
Christ, into the new life that God causes to spring forth.* A. Deissmann, Paul, E. Tr.,
2nd ed., 1926, pp 182 , says: "The ancient Christians were able easily to understand
the mystical meaning of the several stages of baptism to the death, burial and resurrection
with Chnst, because having been baptised as adults, they had an indelibly \ivid recollec-
tion of the ceremony performed upon them by immersion. It is by no means easy for
us, brought up in the practice of infant baptism, to realise this vividness '

3 Cf. J. Schneider, Die Taufe im Neuen Testament, 1952, p. 32: 'Baptism is not the
symbol of repentance, but an experience in which God gives to the penitent that which
he does not yet have: the forgiveness of sins.' W. F. Hemington, E.T., boi, 1950-51,
p- 356, says that the meaning of baptism, to which Paul appeals, must have been Christian
teaching generally acknowledged circa A.D. 58, and it shows that 'baptism means such
an identification with Christ's death and resurrection that we die with Him to sin and
rise with Him to newness of life.* Yet when on the following pages Remington turns
to show that infant baptism is on theological grounds congruous with the whole Christian
revelation, he strangely leaves entirely out of account this acknowledged New Testament
teaching. Nothing could more clearly indicate that the name baptism is being appropriated
for something entirely different.

*Rom. vz. ii.

169

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

power unto him. The power is there, waiting to invade his life
when by faith he yields his life to it. Now we see that baptism,
which is the initiatory rite of the Church, is brought into relation
with this first experience of the power of the Cross, lifting a
man so to enter into its experience that he may be crucified with
Christ and become a new creation. It cannot be even remotely
suggested that an infant in the moment of baptism has an experi-
ence of the recreating power of God in Christ and of the surrender
to God that makes tie Cross the organ of its approach in faith to
God. 1 This death with Christ means much in the thought of Paul,
and he returns to it again and again. 'That I may know him and
the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings,
becoming conformed unto his death.' 2 'I have been crucified with
-Christ; yet I live: and yet no longer I, but Christ liveth in me: and
the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith which
is in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for
me/ 3 This thought he brings into relation with baptism in the
passage from Romans vi quoted above, and in that other passage
from Colossians, quoted earlier: 'Having been buried with him
in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith

1 N, P. Williams frankly acknowledges that infant baptism is something quite different
ifroxn New Testament baptism in subjects and significance. He says that when we repeat
the clause of the Creed 'one baptism for the remission of sins*, 'what we affirm is our
belief in baptism as anciently administered to adults . . . : we neither affirm nor deny
the legitimacy of infant baptism, which is a collateral development from the original
idea and institution of baptism, and which depends for its authority not upon any credal
or conciliar formula, but upon the actual practice of the Church and the semi-articulate
instincts of the general body of Christendom* (op. at., p. 554). In his essay in Essays
Catholic and Critical, ed. by E. G. Selwyn, 1926, pp. 369 fil, however, he bases his argu-
ment on the Dominical institution of the sacrament, and tacitly ignores the fact that by
his own admission no Dominical institution of infant baptism can be maintained. Cf. p.
373: *If our Lord, with all His indifference to mere ceremonial, did actually "institute"
die rites known as "sacraments", then those rites must be of the very highest and most
central importance in the Christian life; and it is difficult to see how such an importance
can be ascribed to them, unless it is the case that through them God does something for
man which man cannot do for himself, that is, unless they are the means or vehicles of
-supernatural grace;' also p. 419: 'we are entitled to conclude that the "institution" . . .
of the two original and fundamental sacraments ... by the Founder of Christianity
Himself, may be taken as proved/ It is hardly legitimate to transfer conclusions based
on the Dominical institution of the sacrament to one which admittedly 'depends for its
authority . . . upon the actual practice of the Church and the semi-articulate instincts
of ... Christendom.*

2 PmL in. 10 * Gal. u. 20.

I7O

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

in the working of God/ 1 Both of these passages see in baptism
an entering into the experience of Christ, and link it with the
fundamental teaching of the New Testament about the death of
Christ, which itself has a wider setting in the teaching of the Bible
as a whole, as has been akeady said in the preceding chapters.

It is interesting to observe that when a paedobaptist defines the
significance of baptism he ignores all of this. Thus Professor T.
W. Manson says baptism signifies (a) admission to a community,
(b) appropriation by Christ, and (c) the gift of the spirit. 2 The
first he likens to birth into a family which does not wait until one
applies for it; the second to the claim of parents upon their
children, which precedes understanding or response; the third to
mother-love, which is not withheld until requested. It will be
noted that in this definition baptism is conceived of as a rite
performed upon a wholly passive individual. It makes no demand
-whatever upon the one baptized in the moment of baptism. In
the thought of the New Testament it signifies first and foremost
union with Christ in His death and resurrection, and a newness of
life which has its source in Him, and it is because of this union
with Christ that it signifies admission to the community of the
Church. For the Church is His body, and they who are of the
Church are in Christ, and Christ in them. 'If any man hath not
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ is in you, the
body is dead because of sin; but the spirit is life because of
righteousness/ 3 Professor Manson rightly says baptism signifies
appropriation by Christ, but omits to observe that it also signifies
self-surrender to Him. It signifies the gift of the Spirit, indeed,
because it signifies the gift of Christ. But the gift of Christ, while
freely offered to all by One "Whose love is as unconstrained as a
mother's and whose offer precedes understanding or response,
must be accepted to be possessed. If the possession of the gift were

1 Col. iL 12.

2 Cf. S.J.T., loc. tit., p. 401. So W. G. Young, ibid. t v, 1952, pp. 29 f, maintains that
baptism is essentially the same whether in the case of infants or adults, and declares that
in it God receives a person into the Church. Unlike Cullmann he would not appear to
ask for faith before baptism in the case of either infant or adult, and would seem to
dismiss the New Testament teaching that baptism is a sharing of the death and resurrection
of Jesus as unworthy even of mention. 8 Rom. viii. 9 f.

171

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

determined by the love of God alone, it would not belong only
to such infants as were brought for baptism, but would belong
to all men; it if were determined by the act of involuntary
baptism, it would be mechanically controlled by men, and the
worst superstitions that have gathered round the act of baptism
would be justified. 1 It is in another atmosphere that Paul moves
when he once more uses the thought of the death and resurrection
of Christ in connection with the inner experience of those who
are in Him. 'If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the
dead dwelleth in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus from the dead
shall quicken also your mortal bodies through his Spirit that
dwelleth in you.' 2

Baptism is a symbol, and it is the constant teaching of the
whole Bible that the symbol has no meaning without that which
it symbolizes. As a mere external act it is as dead as the sacrifices
which the prophets condemned. 3 Professor Cullmann allows that
faith is in all cases essential to give meaning to baptism, but if that
faith is something that may or may not be born in the heart many
years after the baptism is administered it is useless to invest the
symbol with meaning. The religious ritual that is valid, whether
it be sacrifice in ancient Israel or baptism in the Church, is that
which is charged with meaning in the moment of its performance,
and a hollow baptism is as vain as a hollow sacrifice. The robbing
of baptism of its Biblical significance leads to the creation of
something else to take its place, something which is not called
baptism, but to which the real meaning of New Testament
baptism has to be transferred. The symbol is of less importance
than that which it symbolizes. It is of importance that Baptists

1 Cf. N. P. Williams, op. cit. t p. 551: 'It might in fact be contended, that if the epithets
"magical" and "mechanical" can he applied to any parts of the traditional sacramental
system at all, it is the custom of infant baptism first and foremost to which they ought
to be affixed; and such a contention might be thought to derive some force from the
curious stratagems employed by the Jesuit missionaries in North America to enable
them to baptise dying infants amongst the heathen surreptitiously (by unobservedly
flicking a few drops of water over the infant's face, and simultaneously whispering ego
te baptize, etc., whilst apparently engaged in conversation with the parents), for the
purpose of adding as many souls as possible to the Kingdom of God.'

2 Rom, viii. n.

* C N. H. Snaith, I Believe in . . . , p. 113: 'No rite can of itself be effective, nor
can any organization make it so apart from the faith of the believer.'

172

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

no less than others should remember this. What matters most is
not that a man has been voluntarily immersed, any more than
that he has been baptized in infancy, but that he has truly died
with Christ and been raised again to newness of life in Him, so
that his life is now hid with Christ in God. The symbol is worth-
less without that -which it symbolizes. It must be the organ of
the soul's approach in faith and surrender to God before it can
become the organ of God's approach in power to him.

When we turn to the other great Christian sacrament, we find
an even greater diversity of view amongst Christians, and yet
deeper divisions. There is no agreement even as to the name by
which it is known. To some it is the Lord's Supper, to others
the Holy Communion, to others the Eucharist, and to others the
Mass. These various names indicate the dominant view of the
character of the sacrament amongst various groups, though it
should be remembered that there are few, if any, who would
interpret it exclusively in terms of memorial, or communion, or
thanksgiving, or sacrifice. While the primary emphasis is on this
or that element, other elements are also found.

For our present purpose we must consider first of all how far
this sacrament can be understood in terms of sacrifice, and this is
precisely the point where the deepest cleavage is to be found.
That it has been regarded as a sacrifice from the earliest times is
beyond question. In the Didache we read: 'And on the Lord's
day assemble yourselves together and break bread and give
thanks, after confessing your transgressions, that your sacrifice
may be pure. And let no man who has a difference "with his
fellow join your assembly till they have been reconciled, that your
sacrifice be not defiled/ 1 The language of sacrifice was used of
the sacrament by many of the Fathers of the Church, 2 and
became firmly established until it was challenged by the reformers.

1 Didache xiv (cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, ed. by J. R. Harmer, 1891,
pp. 223 , 234).

*C, e.g. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho xli, cxvii (P.G., vi, 1884, cols. 564,
745 ff., E. Tr. by A. Lukyn Williams, 1930, pp. 81 f , 241 ), Irenaeus, Against Heresies
IV, xvii. f. (P.G., vii, 1882, cols. 1023 f., E. Tr. by A. Roberts and W. H. Rambaut,
The Writings of Irenaeus, i, 1874, PP- 43 of.; ed. W. W. Harvey, IV, xxix. 5, xxx., cf.
$. Irenaei Libros uinque adversus Haereses, ii, 1857, PP* X 99 )

173

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Nevertheless, the sacrament was not regarded only as a sacrifice.
It was also a eucharist, or service of thanksgiving, and a com-
munion, whereby the believer was brought into union with
Christ. The sacrificial aspect of the sacrament became isolated
from the other elements, however, and came to be conceived to
be effective apart from them, 1 and it was this development which
led to the objections of the Reformers.

In this development Aquinas played an important part.
Srawley observes that his teaching 'encouraged the separation
of the ideas of sacrifice and communion, which had already taken
pkce in practice, and increased the tendency to view the Mass as
an opus operatum completed in the act of consecration/ 2 The
effect of this encouragement, to use the words of Srawley again,
was that 'an almost magical conception of the operation of the
sacraments came to be current, which took no account of the
spiritual condition of the recipients. Thus the benefits of the
Mass were regarded as operating mechanically for the good of
those on whose behalf it was offered/ 3

It is to be observed that this is not merely a conceptual dis-
tinction between two aspects of the one sacrament. If the one
effect could be experienced where the other was absent, they were
separate and independent interpretations of the significance of the
rite. This is reflected in the decrees of the Council of Trent, where
the articles dealing with the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

1 Cf. A Pohle, The Catholic Encyclopedia, x, 1913, p. ?a: 'The simple fact that numerous
heretics . . . repudiated the Mass . . . while retaining the Sacrament of the true Body
and Blood of Christ, proves that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is something essentially
different from the Sacrifice of the Mass.* "While he holds that they are inseparable, since
the consecrating and sacrificial powers of the priest coincide, he finds that one is directed
to the sanctification of men and the other to the glory of God. It will be seen that the
only thing which holds these two essentially separate aspects of the sacrament together
here is the power of the priest, and it is implied that -while neither is independent of the
priest each aspect is independent of the other. Instead of the two-way traffic which has
been found throughout the present study we have here two separate streams of one-way
traffic, which meet only in the priest. C. Lattey, H.J., ad, 1941-42, p 187, observes that
'Catholic doctrine does not in all cases require corresponding dispositions in the recipient
of the sacrament*.

2 C Hastings's BJfcJS., v, 1912, p. <62a. C Aquinas, Summa Theologica III, Ixxx. 12
(E Tr. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Part HI, id, 1923, p. 402).
"The perfection of this sacrament does not lie in the use of the faithful, but in die conse-
cration of the matter.* s Loc. cit.

174

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

and with the Sacrifice of the Mass are quite separate, the former
being drawn up in 1551 and the latter not until eleven years later. 1
It is also reflected in the teaching of Bellarmine, who distinguished
between the Eucharist, which could only benefit the recipient,
and the Mass, which benefited those for whom it was offered by
the mere fact of its being offered. 2

That this latter view, when separated from the other, should
lead to magical, or quasi-magical, views of the sacrament was
inevitable. For it rested on a purely ex opere operate view of the
rite, similar to the popular view of the potency of ritual that the
pre-exilic prophets had condemned. Against such a view the
protest of the Reformers was both natural and necessary, though
this does not mean that it took the right form. It would have
been wiser to return to the view that bound the various aspects of
the sacrament indissolubly together, rather than to reject wholly
the sacrificial view because of this separate development it had had.
The Roman view of the Mass, as defined by the Council of Trent,
declares: 'If anyone shall say that in the Mass a true and proper
sacrifice is not offered unto God, or that what is offered is none
other than that Christ is given to us to eat, let him be anathema/ 3
As against such a position, so early as 1523 Zwingli had defended
the thesis that 'Christ, who offered Himself once for all on the
Cross, is for ever the effectual sacrifice and victim for the sins of
all the faithful. From this it follows that the Mass is not a sacrifice
but a commemoration of the sacrifice once for all offered on the
Cross, and as it were a seal of the redemption afforded in Christ/ 4
So far as the first part of this thesis is concerned, many who yet

1 The Euchanst was dealt with on Oct. nth, 1551, in the thirteenth session, and the
Sacrifice of the Mass on Sept. lyth, 1562, in the twenty-second session. Cf. F. Kattenbusch,
in P.R.E., 3rd ed., 301, 1903, p. 690. Similarly in the Dictionnaire de Thfologie Cathohque
the sacrament of the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass are dealt with in two separate
articles.

2 Cf. De Eucharistia III, xxii (Disputationes de controversies Christianae fidei, iii, 1613,
cols. 570 f.) and De Missa I, six (ibid., col. 774).

8 Cf. Twenty-second Session, Canon I (cf. G. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Concttiontm nova et
amplissima collectio, xxxiii, 1902, col. 131).

4 Cf. Darwell Stone, History of the Doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, ii, 1909, p. 38; S. M.
Jackson, Huldreich Zwingli, 1901, p. 183. The Latin text is given in B. J. Kidd, Documents
illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1911, p. 412.

175

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

regarded the sacrament as a sacrifice would have agreed. Chrysos-
tom said: e lt is not another sacrifice . . . but we offer always the
same; or rather we perform a remembrance of a sacrifice', 1 and
Duns Scotus in the later Middle Ages 'shows . . . anxiety to
defend the unique character of the sacrifice of the Cross, and
maintains that the sacrifice of the Mass has not the same value as
the Passion of Christ, and that in it Christ does not offer immedi-
ately by an act of His own will, though He is offered as being
contained in the sacrifice/ 2

Nevertheless, the Reformers rejected the whole sacrificial
interpretation of the sacrament. Calvin declares the belief that
the Mass was a sacrifice for obtaining the remission of sins e a most
pestilential error', 3 and the thirty-first Article of the Church of
England, as contained in the Book of Common Prayer, reads:
'The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption,
propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world,
both original and actual; and there is none other satisfaction
for sin, but that alone. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in
which it was commonly said that the priest did offer Christ for
the quick and the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt,
were blasphemous fables, and dangerous deceits/

In the diesis of Zwingli, quoted above, it is declared that the
Mass is not a sacrifice but a memorial service, as though these
were mutually exclusive. The memorial significance has been
greatly emphasized by the Reformed Churches, and it may
rightly be found there. It is true that the words *This do in remem-
brance of Me' are found only in Luke 4 and Paul 5 and not in the

1 Cf. Homilies on Hebrews xvii. 3 (P.G., boil, 1862, col. 131, E. Tr. by F. Gardiner,
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, xiv, 1890, p. 4493). Cf. also Cyprian, Epistle Ixui (to
Caeolius), 14, 17 (ed. W. Hartel, ii, p. 714, E. Tr. by R. E. "Wallis, i, pp. 218 f.).

* Cf. J. H. Srawley, in Hastings's E.R.R, v, 1912, p. s62b. Cf. Quaestiones quodlibetales
xx (Duns Scotus, Opera omnia, xxvi, 1895, pp. 298 ff.).

3 C Institutes, E. Tr. by H. Beveridge, ii, 1869, p. 607. For a study of the Calvinist
doctrine of the sacrament, cf. J. Cadier, E.Th.R., xxvi, 1951, pp. 5-156.

4 Lk. xxii. 19. In the R.S.V. these "words are removed to the margin, along with the
rest of verses I9b, 20, as not belonging to the original text of the Gospel. For the textual
evidence cf. M.-J. Lagrange, Svangile selon St. Luc, 7th ed., 1948, pp. 545 fF. F. C. Grant,
An Introduction to New Testament Thought, p. 283, says: 'The "longer reading" (vss.
I9b-2o) closely resembles the narrative found in First Corinthians and probably represents
an early attempt to complete what must have looked like a fragmentary and incomplete
account of the institution of the Supper." 8 i Cor. xi. 24 f.

176

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

other three Gospels, and their authenticity has accordingly been
challenged, 1 but if any repetition of the Last Supper is observed
at all, a memorial element inevitably belongs to it. Of itself, it
must recall that night, and if when bread and wine are taken our
Lord's words 'This is my body' 2 and 'This is my blood of the
covenant' 3 are repeated, His death on Calvary must be remem-
bered. A memorial significance is integral to the sacrament.

Beyond this, we may rightly find varied significance in the rite.
None of His people can think of their Lord's death without
thanksgiving for the redemption which He wrought, and a
eucharistic element must therefore be present. Nor can it be
supposed that this is in any way exceptionable. Moreover, the
sacrament is a present experience. 'Take, eat* and 'Drink ye* are
found to refer not merely to the symbols, but to Him Whom they
represent, Who may be received into our hearts to order our
lives. The element of communion is therefore to be found here
communion with Christ and communion with the Church,
which, no less than the bread, though in a different way, is the
Body of Christ. It is by no accident that the Fourth Gospel gives
the discourse on the True Vine in its account of the Last Supper
in the Upper Room, 4 where Jesus calls for a oneness with Himself
as intimate as the union of the branch and the tree. Moreover,
since this is no individual feast, its social significance for the
fellowship of the Church of Christ, which must draw all its life
from Him and which must therefore know a profound unity of
spirit when it is truly in Him, cannot be overlooked or forgotten.
Further, this rite is a sacrament, not merely in the sense of some-
thing sacred and ministering grace to the believer, but in the sense
that the word sacramentum acquired in Latin, viz. a vow of
loyalty. 5 *This is my blood of the covenant 9 , 6 or 'This cup is the

1 On this cf. N. P. Williams, in Essays Catholic and Critical, ed. by E. G. Selwyn,
1926, p. 382; J, Jeremias, Die Abendmahlsworte Jesu, 2nd ed, 1949, pp. 81 ; A. J. B.
Higgins, The Lord's Supper in the New Testament, 1952, pp. 38 f.

z Mk. xiv. 22. s Mk. xiv. 24. 4 Jn. xv.

5 It should be remembered that baptism also was a sacramentum, and it is hard to see
how this term could be applied to infant baptism. Cf. E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle
of St. Peter, 1946, p. 205: 'The idea that baptism was a seal of contract given by a good
conscience towards God is not far removed from that which led to the application of the
word sacramenlum, "military oath", to Baptism and the Eucharist." 8 Mk. xiv. 24.

177

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

new covenant in my blood*, 1 reminds us that here as ever we deal
with something that is two-sided. We receive enrichment, but
we also bring loyalty. We remember the establishment of the
covenant that we may renew the covenant by bringing afresh the
spirit of our consecration. 2

All of this is in close accord with New Testament thought,
and also with Old Testament teaching, and much of it with the
thought of the Old Testament on sacrifice. 3 The Passover, with
which the Last Supper was associated by reason of the time
when it took place, was a memorial, but a memorial which
was designed to awaken gratitude and renewed consecration.
In this and in other sacrifices the offerer ate part of the sacrificed
animal, and it is well known that one theory of the primary
meaning of sacrifice is that it was designed to bring about
communion with the deity. While it is questionable if we
can rightly isolate a single element and label it the primary
element, it is certain that this element of communion entered
into some sacrifices. Into many of the sacrificial meals the social
element entered, just as it enters into the Christian sacrament
which we are considering. It has been sufficiently insisted through
all the present lectures that in the teaching of the Old Testa-
ment sacrifice can only mediate blessing when it is the organ
of the offerer's approach to God and renewal of right spiritual
relations with Him.

In one respect, however, we frequently find the contrast with
the Old Testament emphasized. It is often pointed out that
whereas Jesus said 'Drink ye ... this is my blood', 4 and whereas
in the Fourth Gospel we read *he that eateth my flesh and drinketh
my blood abideth in me and I in him 5 , 5 this is alien to the whole
thought and teaching of the Old Testament, where the blood is

1 Lk. xsdi. 20.

* C Martin Bucer: "Three things are bestowed and received, the symbols of bread
and wine, the body and blood of the Lord, and the ratification of the new covenant
and of the remission of sins' (c Darwell Stone, op. cit., ii, 1909, p. 47; the Latin text,
abbreviated in Stone's rendering, stands in M. Bucer, Scripta Anglicana, 1577, pp. 544 f.).

8 C the writer's article 'Sacrament and Sacrifice', H.J., ad, 1941-42, pp. 181 r

* Matt. xxvi. 27 f.
5 Jn. vi 56.

I 7 8

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

forbidden on any account to be consumed. 1 It is to be observed
that in the law of the Old Testament the blood was not to be
consumed because it was too sacred to be consumed. The blood
was the life. 2 While in the Lord's Supper actual blood was not
drunk, but only a symbol of that blood, what is here affirmed is
in harmony with Old Testament thought. Christ was giving His
life, that which was supremely sacred, not merely on behalf of
men but to them, to be the source of their life. e l live; and yet no
longer I, but Christ liveth in me'. 3 The wine was a symbol of the
blood which is the life, and the life of Christ may flow into the
life of His people, as the life of the vine flows into its branches.
Sacred indeed was the blood of Christ, and sacred too His life.
But the life that was taken was not destroyed, and He Who died
lives and lives to give Himself to His people. The wine is therefore
not alone a symbol of the blood that was shed, but of the life that
still is, and he who rightly drinks of the wine drinks not alone
in remembrance but in enrichment; for he receives anew of the
life of His Redeemer and Lord, Who is present in the sacrament,
and present to bless.

While, therefore, as a memorial this rite might point and
certainly does point to the sacrifice of the Cross, which was
offered once for all and needs not to be repeated, other elements
of its significance have sacrificial associations though they are not
primarily memorial, but have reference to the actual experience

1 Cf. C. G. Montefiore, The Synoptic Gospels, i, 1909, p. 326: C I would also venture to
suggest how difficult it is for us to believe that a Palestinian or Galilean Jew could have
suggested that in drinking wine his disciples -were, even symbolically, drinking blood.
For the horror with which the drinking of blood was regarded by the Jews is well
known"; J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth, E. Tr. by H. Danby, 2nd ed., p. 329: 'It is quite
impossible to admit that Jesus would have said to his disciples that they should eat of his
body and drink of his blood*; H. Loewe, in A Rabbinic Anthology, 1938, p. 647: *J e ws
shudder at certain passages in Hebrews and Romans, and the Gospel verses describing
the institution of the Eucharist are painfully repugnant to them. This is due to the blood
element which is so prominent and, indeed, essential.' Since there can be little doubt
that Hebrews and Romans were written by Jews, it is hard to see why Jesus could not
have uttered the words of institution. A first-century Jew, who had been trained in
Palestine, when he wrote i Cor. xi. 24 f, found no difficulty in supposing that Jesus
spoke these words, and he was better acquainted with the contemporary Jewish mind
than any modern writer can be. If a Pharisaically trained Jew of that age did not find
the words abhorrent, where is the evidence that Jesus must have found them abhorrent?

2 Lev. acvii. n. * Gal. ii. 20.

*

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

of the partaker. That the sacrifice of Calvary is a single historical
event, which cannot be repeated, is agreed by all. The thesis of
Zwingli, already quoted, would seern to imply that Roman
Catholics held that the sacrifice of the Cross had exhausted its
power and needed to be renewed. 1 This does less than justice
to their thought. Rupert of Deutz, who held that Christ was
indeed present on the altar, declares that this 'was not that He
may again suffer, but that to faith, to which all past things are
present, His passion may be represented by way of a memory', 2
while Thomas Aquinas declares that the sacrament is a represen-
tative image of the Passion of Christ. 3 Describing the views of
William of Auvergne, 4 Srawley says: 'By his one oblation of
the Cross, Christ has reconciled and sanctified the world. The
sacrifice of the Mass is the application by the will of Christ of the
benefits which accrue from the sacrifice of the Cross'. 5 A modern
Romanist writer, protesting against the Protestant misunder-
standing of the Roman Catholic positions, says: 'The sacrifice
once offered on the Cross filled the infinite reservoirs to over-
flowing with healing waters: but those who thirst after justice
must come with their chalices and draw out what they need to
quench their thirst/ 6 While the metaphor here is not really

1 Cf. J. Calvin, Institutes, E. Tr. by H. Beveridge, ii, p. 609: 'To such a sacrifice*
i.e. Christ's sacrifice on the Cross * . . . shall we, as if it were imperfect, presume
daily to append innumerable sacrifices?' Calvin goes on to dismiss the view that the one
sacrifice is repeated as an imposture by which the father of lies is wont to cloak his fraud,
and as smoke easily dispersed.

*De Trinitate et operibus suis: in Genesim VI, xxxii (P.L , dxvii, 1893, col. 431). Cf.
Darwell Stone, op. at., i, 1909, p. 292.

8 Summa Theokgica ffl, Ixxxiii. i (E. Tr., Part HI, iii, 1923, p. 434). Cf. C. H. Dodd,
in Manson's Companion to the Bible,, I939> p- 386: 'In speaking of the broken bread as
His body, and associating the cup with His blood, He was effecting in a symbol that
sacrifice of Himself which He was about to accomplish in fact. In giving to His disciples
the bread to cat and the cup to drink, He was associating them with Him in that sacrifice
and its consequences.'

4 De sacramento encharistiae (Opera Omnia, 1591, pp. 410 ).

6 Cf. Hastings's E.R.E., v, 1912, p. 5dib. Cf. E. Masure, The Christian Sacrifice, E. Tr.
by Dom Dltyd Trethowan, 1944, p. 237. 'If the Church is ... to offer a sacrifice herself,
this cannot be other *ia that of Christ and the Cross, since we already know that only
this is acceptable to the Father for all time. In short, the Church must offer in all ages and
in every place a sacrifice which is at the same time hers and Christ's, enabling the J&ithful
to participate by communicating with the victim in all the fruits, otherwise unobtainable,
wH were won on Calvary.'

* Cf. J Pohle, The Catholic Encyclopedia, x, 1913, p. 13^

1 80

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

sacrificial, and it suggests that the action in the sacrament is merely
the action of the worshipper, this passage is relevant as showing
that there is full recognition of the once-for-allness of Calvary.

It is to be observed that the very Epistle in the New Testament
which speaks of the once-for-allness of the Cross speaks also of
'crucifying afresh the Son of God'. 1 Here is a warning that we
must not be the slaves of language, and that thought is more
elusive than words. As an event of history the Cross is unique;
yet there is a sense in which it may be repeated. 2 Pohle, who has
been quoted above, draws a distinction between objective and
subjective redemption. 3 This is in harmony with what has been
said in the previous chapter, where it was argued that the sacrifice
of the Cross becomes effective for a man in the moment when he
makes the Cross the organ of his approach to God in surrender.
As an objective sacrifice it took place once for all under Pontius
Pilate; yet for us it is a present sacrifice in the moment of our
obedience and submission. The New Testament knows two
attitudes to the Cross of Christ, and two only. They who reject
Him and His way, and cast Him out of their hearts, crucify Him
afresh and are numbered with His crucifiers; they who make His
Cross the organ of their approach to God are crucified with
Him.* They die and are born anew, because they die with Him
and rise to newness of life in Him.

It may now be observed that Paul brings similar language into
relation with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. He says:
'Whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord
unworthily shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the
Lord,' 5 What Paul clearly means is the same as is meant in the
other passage by crucifying afresh the Son of God. The agony of
Christ is renewed when men reject Him, or when they make the
sacrament of the Lord's Supper a hollow formality, like the
sacrifices the prophets denounced. If to those who come un-
worthily the Supper is in any sense a renewal of the Crucifixion

1 Heb. vi. 6.

2 Cf. O. C. Quick, The Christian Sacraments, 1927, pp. 199 : 'Christ died once in
time, but He offers Himself eternally. In ths Eucharist we make a memorial of Christ's
death; but we make before God an offering of Himself.'

* Loc. cit. 4 Rom. vi. 5 ff., Gal. ii. 20. 8 1 Cor. ad. 27.

181

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

in judgement, to those who corne worthily it may be a renewal
of the power of the Cross in blessing.

Here is a sacrificial view of the Lord's Supper which is in the
fullest accord with Biblical thought as a whole and with New
Testament thought in particular. It does not isolate the sacrificial
significance and make it operative for those who do not make
the sacrament the organ of their approach to God, but recognizes
that as all valid sacrifice must bear a two-way traffic, so this must
bear a two-way traffic. 1 Paul's insistence on the spirit of the
partaker, and on the necessity to eat worthily, makes this clear.
The same act may be the organ of judgement or of blessing. For
the effect of the act is not independent of the spirit of him who
partakes. William of Auvergne maintained that 'the first and
chief sacrifice is that of ourselves, without the offering of which
nothing that we present to God is pleasing or acceptable to Him/ 2
Sacrament and sacrifice cannot be separated from one another,
but must coalesce. The whole mediates grace to a man's heart,
provided it is also an offering which he brings to God. So often
we think of sacrifice merely as man's offering to God, and not
also as the bearer of divine blessing to man, or as a quasi-magical
means of bringing blessing to him without regard to his spirit.
One of the fundamental notes running through the Bible is that
separated these things are futile and vain, but that together they
become rich and full of blessing.

In so far as it is a sacrifice, what is offered to God is not the
self-surrender to which reference has so often been made. The
Reformers held it to be preposterous that a man should suppose
that he could bring to God any gift that was worthy. 3 This

1 Cf. the definition of sacrifice offered by E. Masure, op. at., E. Tr , p. 78: 'Sacrifice
is a sensible sign (or rite) in which under the symbols (or species; of a victim, man, to
pay his dues to God and so to realize his end, bears witness that he renounces sin which
is his evil (immolation), and that he turns to God who is his good (oblation) hoping
that the divine acceptance, sanctifying his offering, will win for him the heavenly alliance
at which he aims and that the victim will bnng him by communion the guarantee of it.'

2 Cf. J. H. Srawley, in Hastings's KR.R, v, 1912, p. 56ib, also Darwell Stone, op, at.,
i, 1909, pp. 31?

Cf. J. Calvin, Institutes, E. Tr. by H. Bevendge, ii, p. 612: The sacrifice of the mass
pretends to give a price to God to be received as satisfaction. . . When the liberality
of the divine goodness ought to have been recognized, and thanks returned, he make
God to be his debtor.'

182

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

would indeed be preposterous if he came with any gift which
derived from himself. In speaking of the initial act of surrender
to Christ in the preceding chapter we said that a man must so
yield himself that the old man is crucified with Christ and dies.
What he brings to God is the sacrifice of Christ, and he becomes
united with Christ, so that he offers to God the obedience of
Christ, with Whom he is now one. 1 His surrender is the condition
of his salvation, and not its organ the condition of his approach
to God and not its channel. He dies that he may live, and in the
same moment he is lifted on the obedience of Christ into the
presence of God and receives from Him the new self which
derives its life from Christ. 2

What, then, is the relation of the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper to baptism? In so far as it has sacrificial significance, is it
not closely similar to the significance we have found in baptism?
If baptism is a dying unto Christ and rising anew in Him, how
can the experience symbolized in the Lord's Supper also be a
dying with Christ and a rising anew in Him? Here we are brought,
as so often, into the paradox of truth and experience.

Let it be noted, first, however, that in the Early Church the two
sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper were brought into
close association. 3 The newly baptized were admitted immedi-

1 Cf. W. Spens, in Essays Catholic and Critical, ed. by E. G. Sdwyn, 1926, p. 436:
'The Last Supper and the Eucharist are not separate sacrifices from that of Calvary, but
supply a necessary element in the sacrifice of Calvary, by expressly investing our Lord's
death before God and man with its sacrificial significance.* Cf. O. C. Quick, The Christian
Sacraments, 1927, p. 199: 'Christian people may rightly offer Christ as an oblation apart
from themselves, only in so far as they honestly intend that through their action the
Christ, Whom they offer, may draw them, into His own self-offering.'

a P. Melanchthon protested that 'we do not offer Christ to God, but He offered Himself
once for all* (cf. B. J. Kidd, Documents illustrative of the Continental Reformation, 1911,
p. 93). With this the present writer is in full agreement. But, as is clear from what has
been said in the preceding and the present chapters, it is here maintained that Christ's
sacrifice on the Cross becomes our sacrifice when it is the organ of our approach to God,
and it then becomes the organ of God's approach to us in power. As an objective sacrifice
it cannot be repeated, but as our sacrifice it may be renewed not by a priestly act, but
by our approach in the spirit which makes possible the two-way traffic.

8 Cf. E. G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter, 1946, pp. 29? = "The context of i Pet.
ii. i-io is baptismal as well as Eucharistic; and this should be borne in mind when we
speak of the passage as sacramental. The custom of keeping the two sacraments together,
in time as well as in thought, which was characteristic of the Church in the early centuries
may well have had its origin in Apostolic times.'

183

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

ately to the Lord's table. This was before the baptismal rite had
been torn asunder into two. It was a single ceremony, and it and
the first communion belonged intimately together. But with the
growth of infant baptism this led to infant communion. Cyprian
refers to children who at the outset of their lives were brought
to the Lord's table, 1 and Augustine teaches that since John vi. 53
shows that this sacrament is as essential to salvation as baptism,
infants need this as much as the other. 2 This practice continued
for many centuries and is still found in the Greek Orthodox
Church. In the Roman Church it continued down to the twelfth
or thirteenth century, but then disappeared, 3 and the Council of
Trent decreed that children below the age of reason were bound
by no necessity to observe this sacrament. 4 Here, therefore, the
two sacraments that were seen to belong together were torn
apart, and the Churches which have split the rites of baptism
into two rites give the name of baptism to that which has no
Scriptural baptismal significance and link the first communion
with the other which has no Scriptural warrant. It is further
interesting to observe that the belief in baptismal regeneration
has persisted, while the belief in the necessity for the sacrament
of the Lord's Supper has been abandoned, despite the clearer
Scriptural warrant for the latter than for the former. 'Except ye
eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have not
life in yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day/ 5
To return to the relation between the two sacraments, we may
observe that in New Testament thought both are related to the
Cross of Christ, the great central fact of our faith. That is an act
of history which cannot be repeated and which needs not to
be repeated. There the sacrifice which transcended any Temple

1 Cf. On the Lapsed 9 (ed. W. Haxtel, i, 1868, p. 43, E. Tr. by R. E. Walks, i, 1870,
P. 357).

2 Cf. De peceatontm mentis et remissione xx (PX., xLv, 1865, col. 133).

3 C G. Rietschel, in P.R., 3rd ed., x, 1901, p. 290, where it is stated that it is doubtful
if it survived in Germany after the twelfth century, while the Council of Bordeaux in
1255 pronounced against it.

4 Twenty-first Session, Canon IV (Mansi, op. cit., xxxui. col. 123).
Jn. vi 53 f.

184

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

sacrifice was offered. That sacrifice becomes effective for men of
every generation in the moment when by surrender and faith
they make the Cross the organ of their approach to God. Baptism
symbolizes the initial experience of death and resurrection, of
union with Christ and rebirth in Him, of the forgiveness of sins
and the cleansing of the heart. It is only appropriate to mark that
experience, and not to anticipate it by many years. It is meaning-
less without that which it symbolizes, but it may be a channel of
blessing to those who know the experience which it symbolizes.
It marks the time when the historical death of Christ enters anew
into history in their individual experience, and gives an objectivity
to their covenant with their Lord. This is an experience which
does not need to be repeated, and hence baptism is a sacrament
which needs to be administered but once.

The sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a memorial continues
to remind the believer of the Cross. It also continues to lift him
into the life of Christ, so that he may feed on Him and receive
of His Spirit into the heart, and calls forth his glad thanksgiving.
It continues to bind him in the fellowship of the Church, and to
hold him in the corporate Body of Christ. But as a sacrifice, is it
not meaningless? He has entered into the sacrifice of the Cross
once, and it has become for him a sacrifice that cannot be repeated.
Nevertheless, there is a sense in which that which cannot be
repeated may yet be repeated. In the story of the washing of the
disciples' feet, Jesus said to Peter: 'If I wash thee not, thou hast
no part with me.' Peter answered: 'Lord, not my feet only, but
also my hands and my head.' Jesus replied: *He that is bathed
needeth not Save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit.' x The
metaphor is not perfect, yet the meaning is clear. The washing of
the feet symbolizes the renewed cleansing of the whole body. He
who is born anew in Christ is reborn but once; nevertheless he
needs to be continually reborn in Him. The initial experience is
unrepeatable; yet in a sense it has to be repeated. The Cross of
Christ continues to have meaning and also power for him. The
sacrament of the Lord's Supper reminds him of the dying of his

1 Jn. xiii. 8 ff.
185

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Lord that the work of the Cross may be renewed in him. In the
sacred experience of this sacrament the Cross becomes anew his
sacrifice unto God, that the power of God may be renewed in
his heart. His covenant with God, the covenant which first
becomes real for him in the moment of his first dying with
Christ, is renewed as he presents himself anew unto God in
Christ. Instead of repeating the crucifixion of Christ for his own
judgement by eating unworthily, he repeats the sacrifice of
Christ and of himself in Christ. 1

Here, as everywhere, the symbol is worthless without that
which is symbolized. Biblical religion everywhere makes that
which is symbolized more important than the symbol, and finds
peril in a symbol which becomes an end in itself. Yet it does not
despise symbols when they are charged with meaning. The
Lord's Supper is a symbol which represents the constant renewal
of our surrender to Christ and the renewal of His work in us
the washing of the feet of those who are bathed which revali-
dates for us His sacrifice on our behalf by calling forth anew from
us the spirit He must ask. If it represents this it has meaning when
it marks the experience of that renewal, but is futile and worse if
it but replaces the experience.

Here we must leave the large theme which has engaged our
attention. Only a few of its aspects have been dealt with, and
these have been but lightly touched. The threads of unity which
run through both Testaments are many, and we have traced but
a few of these, noting some of the correspondences between the
Old and New Testaments which bind them securely together,
and above all noting the fundamental conception of the nature
of religion which belongs to the whole Bible. Everywhere it is
man's response to the achieved work of God, his yielding to the
constraint of grace, his fellowship with God and obedience to
Him, his reflection of the Spirit of God in every aspect of his life,
and the lifting of his life into the purpose of God. It does not
despise symbols, though many of the symbols of the Old Testa-
ment are transcended in the New. It demands, however, that the

1 Cf. The Rediscovery of the Old Testament, 1946, p. 170.

186

THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS

symbols shall be invested with reality by being made the vehicles
of the spirit. If Christ is the fulfilment of the hope of the Old
Testament, He is also the satisfaction of the need of every man.
It is in union with Him that man, who was made in the image
of God, can reflect that image, for in union with Him he is
lifted into the life of God, without Whose fellowship he cannot
walk in God's way.

18?

ADDITIONAL NOTE

While the present work has been in the Press, the work of P. Ch. Marcel, The Biblical
Doctrine of Infant Baptism (E. Tr. by P. E. Hughes), 1953, has been published. It was
impossible to take account of its arguments in the text or footnotes, and it is impossible
here to traverse them at length. Marcel agrees with the present writer that the theological
significance of baptism in the light of the teaching of both Testaments is of more im-
portance than the argument from the absence of mention of infant baptism in the New
Testament, or the reading of infant baptism into New Testament texts (cf. Marcel,
pp. 15 f., 187 and pp. 161 f. n. in the present work). Like so many writers he makes the
appeal to circumcision in justification of infant baptism, and cites Calvin with approval
for the view that the feet that circumcision -was not applied to females is of no significance,
since they are not by nature fitted for it (p. 158). This ignores the fact that circumcision
of both sexes has been practised among some peoples. Of greater importance is Marcel's
admission (p. 19): *At the present moment the cause of pedobaptism is theologically lost,
and its advocates, deprived of theological arguments, attempt to find a precarious refuge
in facts and notions which cannot afford the least bit of genuine justification, such as the
testimony of history, the tradition of the ancient Church or Reformed tradition, inscrip-
tions, mosaics, sculptures, pieces of money, citations from the fathers, and so on what
have they not tried to seize upon!' Here, again, he is in agreement with the present
writer as against many of the advocates of paedobaptism dealt with in the present
work. Marcel's own attempt to provide a theological justification of infant baptism is,
however, no more successful, since in relation to the baptism of adults he draws on the
New Testament and declares it to be the sign and seal of regeneration, and holds that it
can only be administered on evidence of repentance and faith (pp. 144, 183), whereas
in relation to the baptism of infants he turns to the Old Testament and to infant circum-
cision and declares that baptism testifies to their salvation by sealing and confirming the
covenant of God upon them (p. 201). While he rightly declares in one place: *A sacrament
received without faith confers nothing more than the Word heard without faith* (p. 49),
he is reduced to the necessity of denying this elsewhere in the case of infants "who are
baptized, and to except them from the theological principles on which he bases his study.
He says: 'Even as the Word is efficacious only for him who receives it with faith, similarly
the sacraments, as far as they concern adults, are only efficacious as means of grace for those
who receive them with faith' (p. 44). There is a fundamental difference between a sacra-
ment which is efficacious only when received in faith and one which is efficacious when
it is not received in faith, and it is doubtful if Marcel can have convinced himself 'when he
protested that the basis of baptism is the same in the two cases. The theological significance
of the two baptisms cannot be the same, when they are so differently conditioned.

As to the alleged efficacy of infant baptism, Marcel makes a most damaging admission
which can only embarrass the cause he seeks to serve. For he says (p. 169), in dealing with
the time of the efficacy of baptism, that the sacraments become effective when one
receives them with faith, but that *this reception by faith of the sacrament of baptism
is not bound to a precise moment dependent on external circumstances*, but that 'it
depends on the state of soul of the believer, for whom his baptism bears fruit on each
occasion on which he refers back to it with faith', but confesses on the same page that 'in the
Reformed Church the great majority of Christians never refer back to their baptism*.
The time of the efficacy for this great majority is thus defined as never, and to the present
writer it seems futile to seek a theological justification of a rite that is admitted to be
hollow and inefficacious in the majority of cases.

It will be noted that in the passage quoted above from p. 44 Marcel refers to *the
sacraments, as far as they concern adults'. This would seem to imply that he would
advocate the administering of both sacraments to infants, and this would follow from
his argument elsewhere. For he says (p. 123) tf at children are members of the visible

THE UNITY OF THE BIBLE

Church, and (p 190) that 'Scripture assigns to the children of believers the enjoyment
of the same privileges as are experienced by those who are of an age to confess their
faith*. If his argument is valid for baptism it is valid also for the Lord's Supper. It remains
to be seen how many paedobaptists will endorse his arguments and will seek to restore
infant communion to Western Churches. Throughout, Marcel is concerned only with
the children of believers, as in the passage just cited, and he offers no support whatever
to the practice of indiscriminate baptism which is still so widely practised.

190

INDEX

(a) SUBJECTS

Abel, 85

Abraham, 72 74

Adam, 26, 74, 83

Afterlife, 62 f.

Ahab, 82

Ahaz, npn, 120

Allegorical interpretation of O.T., 17

Amos, 34, ?8, 80, 82, 128; and sacrifice,

29 f , 32, 33 n , 38, 40, 42
Antitheses of Scripture often overpressed,

i , 4, 7 ff , 30, 34 ff.
Apocrypha, 91 ff.
Atonement, Day of, 45, 46 n., 57, 104,

137 n., 139-

Baal, 24

Baptism, i49fT, and circumcision, 150,
155 fF, 189 f. ; and Jewish lustra-
tions, 151, and proselyte baptism,
151 fF, 154 ff; and John's baptism,
153 f; of infants, 153 , 1545".,
189 f ; and faith, 157, 162 ff , 167;
and theology, 159, 161 ff., 168 f ,
189 f ; and prevement grace, 165 ,
171 f; and Cross, 169 ff; and Lord's
Supper, 183 , 190

Barnabas, 88.

Bathsheba, 49.

Biblical Studies, Changed climate of, 2 f.

Blood revenge, 89 n., 107 n.

Cain, 26

Caleb, 18

Calf, Golden, 65

Canon, Formation of, 35 , 38, 91 ff.

Christ, Person of, 63, 100 , 123 ; Claims
of, 97; and the Law, 102 ; and
sacrifice, 103 ; and Suffering Servant,
105 ff., 125, 129 rf., 138 f.; and
supersession of O.T., 14, 102 , 105 ff,
129 ff., the fulfilment of O.T., 12 f ,
io<5 , io8ff; Work of, 122 ff.;
Union with, 141 , 144 , 168 ,
177 fF.

Chronicler, Theology of, 62

Circumcision, 150, 155 ff., 189 f.

Communion, Holy. See Supper, Lord's

Comparative Negative, 39

Constantine, 161 n.

Corporate personality, 60, 125 n.

Covenant, 12, 21, 25, 27, 41, 44, 68, 69 ,
71 , 79, 81, 99, 102, 113 ff., 145 f ,
153, 155, 157; New, 71 , 99 , 101,
113 f, 146, 177 , 186

Creation, Accounts o 23 fF., 75

Cross, 18, 20, 78, 99, 112; the final
sacrifice, 105 ff.; Interpretation of,
122 ff., 129 ff.; and baptism, 169 ff.;
and Lord's Supper, 175 ff.

David, 15, 49 , 62, 68
Dead Sea Scrolls, 56 n., 133 n.
Decalogue, 21 , 25, 44, 63 ff, 79, 103
Deutero-Isaiah, 24, 27 , 51, 55 , 88, 101,

n<5, 135, 139

Deuteronomy, 35, 37 , 44, 53 , 70 n.
Diversity of Bible, 2 ff., 30, 90, 122 ff.

Ecclesiastes and sacrifice, 46 n.; and
Christian Bible, 93 n.

Election, 26 ff, 70, 78, 99, H4f

El Shaddai, 23 f.

Ethical Religion, 25, 78 ff.

Eucharist. See Supper, Lord's

Eve, 26

Exodus, 10 , 25 , 41, 65, 68, 70, 80,
112 ; Historical substance of tradi-
tion of, II , 21

Ezekiel, 35, 53

Faith and reason, 9 ff.; and salvation,
140 ff., 157 f , 159 ff., 168, 178, 184 ff.
Forged Decretals, 164 n.

Gibeah, 15
Gideon, 64

God, Biblical teaching about, 62 ff.
Golden Age, 85 ff., 95, no ff.
Golden Rule, 103

Grace and response, 25, 69, 79 , 99,
101 ff., 120 n., 145 fF.

Hosea, 34; and sacrifice, 32, 39

Image of God in man, 75 f , 79
Images, 51, 64

191

INDEX

Individualism, 70 ff., 82 , 86
Inspiration, 8, 15 f.

Isaiah, Call of, 43, 57. 69, So; and sacrifice,
32, 38; and messianism, 86 f. n.

Jacob, 19 n.

Jeremiah, 34 n., 35, 85; and sacrifice, 31 f.,

38, 40 ; and individualism, 70 ff.,

146; and New Covenant, 71 f., 113
Jesus, r , 13 , 59 n., 73, 82, 84, 103,

io8n., 112 ff, 122 ff., 185
Jezebel, 82
Job, 71, 85, ioi
Joel, 67
John, St., 82
John the Baptist, 84, 109 n., 134; and

baptism, 153
Jonah, 88, 116
Josiah, 35, 38, 53, 87 n.
Judaism and sacrifice, 46, 95 , 107 ;

Spirit of; 44, 4<5, 47 , 96, H7J and

O.T., 7, 94 nt See also Mission of

Israel
Justification, 56 , 136 f.

Kingdom of God, 86 ff., 95, 108, 123 n.,
125, 153

Law, Prophetic attitude to, 3 off.; and

sacrifice, 43 ff., 50 f.
Levitate marriage, 89 n., 107 n.
Lord's Supper. See Supper, Lord's
Lustrations, Jewish, 151

a 1-h ash-bag, ii9n.
Man, Biblical teaching about, 73 ff-
Manasseh, 33
Mass, The, 48 n., 149, 173, 174 f. See also

Supper, Lord's
Media of Revelation, 8, 16 , 65 , 79 ,

97, 107 f.
Messianic prophecy, I, 59, 95, 108 ff.,

"5, 153
Micah and sacrifice, 32 ; and religion, 77;

and TTiftgrianiCTTi, 86 n.
Micaiah, 15, 82, 85
Mission of Israel, 28 , 60, 88, 96, 106,

U5ff; of Church, 116, 145
Moabite Stone, 107 n,
Monotheism, 22 ff., 27 , 55, 63 , 128;

in Christianity, 63, ioo; in

63, ioi; Moses and, 22 ff., 63

Moses, 10 ff., 21 ff, 31, 41, 44, 63, 65 f.,
79, 95 ff., 112, 118, 123, 153; and
monotheism, 22 ff.; and Yahwism,
25 ff.

Naboth, 82
Nahum, 37 n.
Negative, Relative, 39 f.
New Testament supersession of O.T , 2,
14, 102 f.

Old Testament anticipations and N.T.
realization, 12 , io6, 108 ff.; and
Christian Bible, 91, 93 ff.

Passover, 3 in., 41, 52 f, H2f., 134, 138
Patterns, Recurring Biblical, 10 ff., 20,

97 ff., n8ff., 144
Paul, i, 2n., 17, 56, 85, 88, in, 113 f. n.,

115, 125 n., 131 n., 136 , 141, 145 n.,

149 n., 155 n., 157 ff., 167 ff., 181 f.
Pentateuch, 21, 33, 35 f 41, 53. 64 , 68
Peter, 82, 185
Pharisees, 47, H7n.
Philip, 167

Priests and prophets, i, 35 ff.
Prophecy and fulfilment, 12 , io6,

108 ff., 138 f; Argument from, 119 f.
Prophets and prediction, i; and the Law,

i, 4, 30 ff.; and sacrifice, 30 ff., 127;

pre-exilic compared with post-exilic,

34 ; cultic, 36; and liturgies, 37;

Compilation of books of, 34
Proselyte baptism, 151 ff., I54ff.
Psalter and sacrifice, 47 ff.
Ras Shamra, 31
Remnant, 72, U4f., 117
Relation of Testaments, 93 ff., 108 ff.,

144
Religion, Nature of, So , ioi ff., 172 ,

184 ff.

Resurrection, no, 131, 141 , 169 ff.
Revelation. See Media of Revelation

Sacraments. See Baptism and Supper,
Lord's

Sacrifice, Prophets and, 30 ff., 127; Alleged
Canaanite origin of Israelite, 31; as
vehicle of the spirit, 42 ff, 51 , 58,
139 ff.; Law and, 43 ff.; Potency of,
50 ff., I3i; of Suffering Servant,
54 ff., 104 , 129 ff.; of Christ, 129 ff.;
and Lord's Supper, 150 ; superseded
in Cross, 105 ff., 129 ff.; Judaism and,
95 , 107 , H7

192

INDEX

Samaritan schism, 36

Samuel, 14, 41

Satan, 62

Saul, 15

Science and faith, 9 fF.

Second Coming, no , 125 n.

Servant Songs, 55 , 59, 106 fF., 109 n.,

135 , 138. See also Suffering Servant
Seth, 26
Sheol, 62
Shiloh, 65
Sodom, 72
Solomon, 82, 86 n.
Son of Man, 125
Song of Songs, Allegorical interpretation

of, 17
Supper, Last, 112, 114, 131, 134, U9 &

See also Supper, Lord's
Supper, Lord's, 173 fF.; as sacrifice, 149 ,

173 fF., 178 fF.; as commemoration,

175 ; Blood symbolism of, 178 fF.;

and baptism, 182 ; and infants, 184,

189
SufFering Servant, 54 fF., 78, 104 , 108 ,

112, 1 1 8, 125, 129 fF., 138 , 145
Syncretism, 24

Theology of O.T., 4 fF
Timothy, 159
Totalitarian! gyHj 82
Trent, Council o 92, 174
Typology, 17 , 98, 120, 149

Unity of the Bible found in diversity, i fF.,
30, 90, 122 ; of O.T., 7, 30 fF.; of
N.T., 122 fF.; is dynamic, 7, 14 fF., 27,
63. 73. ?S, 83; of common message,
62 fF.; of common patterns, 97 fF.,
118 fF., 144 ; in interlocking ele-
ments, 12 , 95 fF., xoSfF, 144 ; in
fundamental principles, 42 , 77 ,
139 ff-, i66, 172 , 184 fF.

Universalism, 28 f, 86

Uriah, 49

Virgin Birth, 119 n., 120, 124
Yahweh and Israel, 23, 25 , 28

Zadokite Work, 133 n.
Zechariah (martyr), 91 n.

(b) AUTHORS

Abelard, 126 f., i66n.

Abrahams, 1 , 152 n.

Albo, J., 95 n.

Albright, W. F., 5 n., 22 n.

Alfrink, B. J., 20 n.

Allmen, J -J. von, 161 n.

Alt, A., 87 n.

Althaus, P., 162 n.

Ambrose, 126 n., 161 n.

Amster, S., 19 n.

Anderson, G. "W., 23 n., 86 n.

Aquinas, 174, 180

Augustine, 161 n., 184

Auvergne, William of, 180, 182

Auvray, P., 56 n.

Baab, O. J., 5 n., 63 n.

Bacon, B. W., 132 ru

Ball, C.J., 1340.

Barr, J., 166 n.

Barth, K., 155 n., 163 n., 16*6 n.

Bardet, J. V., 160 n.

Barton, G. A., 23 n., 161 n.

Basil, 161 n.

Baumgartel, 20 n.

Beare, F. W., 167 n.

BeUarmine, 93 n., 175

Benoit, J.-D., 155 EL, 159 n., 161 n.

Bentzen, A., 59 n., 87 n.

Berry, G. R., 50 ru

Bertram, G., 7ru

Beveridge, H., 149 n., 176 n., 180 n., 182 n.

Bewer, J. A., 30 n.

Bickennan, E. J., 106 n.

Bierberg, R., 20 n.

BiUcrbeck, P., 133 n., 137 n., 152 n.

Black, J. S., 30 n.

Bleeker, L. H , 20 n.

Bonsirven, J., io6n., 115 n., 120 n., 152 n.

Bousset, W., 115 n., 132 n., 152 n.

Bowman, J. W., 121 n., 132 n., 134 n.

Box, G. H., 46 n., 87 n., 152 n.

Brandt, "W., 152 n.

Branscomb, H., 132 n.

Bnggs, C. A., 48 n.

Bright, J., 86 n.

Browne, C. G., 156 ru

Bruce, F. F., 138 n., 16711.

Brunner, E., 155 n., 164 n., 165 n.

Buber, JML, 23 n.

193

INDEX

Bucer, M., 178 n.

Buchler, A., 151 n.

Btlchsel, F., 137 n-

Budde, K., 23 n.

Buhl, F., 93 n.

Bultrnann, R., 7 n., 134 n., 137 n.

Burney, C. F., 134 n.

Burrows, M., 5 n.

Cadier, J., 176 n.

Cadoux, C. J., 39 n., 116 n., 125 n., 131 n.,

132 n.

Calmet, A , 151 n.
Calvin, 149 n., 155 n., 161 n., 166 n., 176,

iSon., 182 n., 189
Carpasius, Plulo. See under Philo
Cassiodorus, pseudo-, 18 n,
Causse, A., 115 n.
Cerfaux, L., 19 n., 136 n., 137 n.
Ceuppens, F., 76 n.
Chaine, J., 13811.
Charles, R. H., I n.
Cheyne, T. 1C, 23 n., 25 n., 105 n.
Christie, P., 151 n.
Chrysostom, 161 n., 176
Clark, A. C., 167 n.
Clement of Alexandria, 161 n.
Coates, J. R~, 6 n., 56 n.
Cohen, A., 46 n., 105 n.
Coleran, J. E., 33 n.
Cooke, G. A., 107 n.
Coppens, J, 19 n., 20 n., 11911., 152 n.,

153 n.

Cornill, C., 87 n.
Crabtree, A. B., 19 n.
Craig, C. T., 5 n., 132 n.
Crombie, F., 151 n.
Crurn, J. M. C., 125 n.
Cullmann, O., in n., 149 n., 156 n., 160 n.,

161 n., 162 , 165, 167, 171 n.
Cyprian, 15511., 156 n., 176 n., 184
Cyril of Alexandria, 18 n.
Cyril of Jerusalem, 169 n.

Dahl,N. A., 120 n.

Daiches, S., 49 n.

Danby, H., 47 n., 150 n., 179 n.

Dani&ou, J., 19 n.

Davies, P. E., 29 n.

Davies, W. D., 2n., 19 n., 133 n., 137 n.

Deissmann, A., 137 n., 169 n,

Denbcaux, F. J., 29 n.

Dennefeld, L., 29 n,, 87 n., 93 n.

Denney, J., 13 in.

Dentan, B- C., 5 ru, 29 n.

Rupert of. See under Rupert
Dhorme, E., 130 n.
Dittmann, H., 114 n.
Dix, Dom. Gregory 164 n.
Dodd, C. H., i n, 3 n., 4 n., 7 n., 17 n ,

19 n., 135 n., 136 n., 137 n., 138 n.,

141 n., i Son.
Dods, M., 157 n.
Driver, S. R., 76 n., 150 n.
Duhm, B., 87 n.
Duns Scotus. See under Scotus
Dupont-Sommer, A., 133 n.
Durham J., 18 n.
Dussaud, R., 31 n., 32 n.

Ebeling, G., 17 n.

Edelkoort, A. H., 87 n , 105 n.

Eerdmans, B. D., 49 n.

Eichrodt, W., 5 n., 86 n., 120 n.

Eissfeldt., O., 5 n., 36 n., 87 n.

Elbogen, I., 45 n.

Engnell, I., 37 n., 86 n., 133 n.

Epstein, 1 , 43 n.

Evans, P. W., 167 n.

Farrar, F. W., 17 n.

Fenton, J. C., 157 n.

Filson, F. V., 29 n,, 98 n., 132 n.

Finkelstein, L., 117 n., 151 n.

Fischer, J., 87 n.

Hemington, W. F., 152 n., 153 n., 154 n.,

155 n., 156 n., 160 n., 162 n., 165 n.,

169 n.

Fraine, J. de, 71 n.
Franks, R S., 166 n.
Freedman, H., 43 n., 46 n.
Frost, S. B., 86 n.

Gardiner, F., 176 n.

Caster, T. H., 52 n., 53 n.

Gavin, F., I52n.

Gelin, A., 6 n.

George, A., 33 n.

GifTord, E. H., 167 n.

Gildersleeve, B. L., 157 n.

Gilmour, S. M., 104 n.

Ginsberg, H. L., 87 n.

Glen, J. S., 29 n.

Godet, F. L., 13 6 n.

Goguel, M., 131 n., 137 n.

Goldschmidt, L., 95 n., 103 n , 106 n.,

152 n,, 155 n.
Gordon, A. R., 23 n.
Graham, W. C., 86 n.

194

INDEX

Grant, F. C., 2 n., 3 n., 108 n., 114 n.,

npn., 13 in., 176 n.
Grant, R. M. f 29 n.
Gratian, 164 n.
Gray, G. B., 52 n,, 130 n.
Greenstone, J. H., 95 n.
Gregory, Nazianzen, 156 n., 161 n.
Gregory of Nyssa, 126 n.
Gressmann, 23 n., 115 n., 152 n.
Gribomont, J., 19 n.
Grimm, C. L. W., 136 n.
Grundmann, W., 7 n.
Guillet, J., 6 n., 120 n.
Guitton, J., 6 n
Gunkel, H., 75 n.

Haldar, A., 36 n., 37 n.

Harmer, J. R., 150 n , 173 n.

Harnack, A., 2n., H9n.

Hartel, W., 155 n., 156 n., 176 n., 184 n.

Harvey, W. W., 150 n., 167 n., 173 n.

Haupt, P., 37 n.

Headlam, A. C., 136 n.

Heaton, E. W., 72 n., H4n.

Hebert, A. G , 99 n.

Heidt, W., 5 n., 76 n.

Heinisch, P., 5 n., 76 n.

Heitmiiller, W., 132 n., 152 n.

Hempel, J., 71 n., 75 n.

Herbert, A. S., 6 n.

Hering, J, 114 n., 1390., 158 n.

Herkenne, H., 49 n.

Herner, S., 5 n., 33 n., 40 n.

Hertzberg, H. "W., 120 n.

Higger, M., io6n., 152 n.

Higgins, A. J. B., 93 n., 11301., 13 in.,

177 n.

Hilary of Poitiers, 92 n.
Hillel, 103 n.

Hillel, Rabbi (third cent.), 95 n.
Hoffmann, D., 106 n.
Hdlscher, G., 21 n.
Holzinger, H , 76 n.
Hooke, 23 n., 31 n , 32 n.
Hoonacker, A. van, 87 n.
Horovitz, S., 106 n.
Horst, P., 76 n.

Howard, W. F., 109 n. f 132 n.
Howorth, H., 92 n., 93 n.
Hughes, P. E., 189

Humbert, P., 37 n., 56 n., 75 n., 105 n.
Hunter, A. M., I n., 4 n., 122 n., 125 n.
Husik, L, 95"n.
Hyatt, J. P., 3 m.

Irenaeus, 150 n., 161 n., 167 n., 173 n.
Irwin, W. A., 5 n., 23 n., 33 n., 173 n.
Isidore, pseudo-, 164 n.

Jacob, E., 6 n.

Jackson, F. J. Foakes, 115 n., 132 n.

Jackson, S. M., 175 n.

Jahn, J., 93 n.

James, F., 22 n.

Jeremias, A., 74 n.

Jeremias, J , 113 n., 114 n., 131 n., 133 n ,

134 n., 177 n.

Jerome, 92 n., 105 n., 161 n.
Johanneson, 133 n.
Johnson, A. R., 6 n., 36 n., 86 n.
Junker, H., 42 n.

Justin Martyr, 150 n., 157 n., 158 n., 173 n.
Justus Urgellensis, 18 n.

Kapelrud, A. S., 37 n.

Kattenbusch, F., 175 n.

Kautzsch, E., 30 n.

Kidd, B. J., 175 n., 183 n.

Kirnhi, 128 n

Kissane, E. J., 56 n., 62 D., 87 n., 105 n.

Kittel, G., 6 n., 132 n.

Klausner, J., 47 n., 179 n.

Knight, H , 6 n.

Koehler, L., 5 n., 75 n., 105 n

Kdnig, E., 23 n., 105 n.

Kummel, W. G., 137 n.

Lacheman, E. R., 6 n.

Lagrange, M-J., 119 n , 131 n., 133 n.,

137 n., 153 n., 176 n.
Lake, K., 115 n., 132 n.
Lampe, G. H. W., 156 n., 157 n., 162 n.,

164 n., 165 n.
Lamy, B., 93 n.
Langibrd, N. F., 29 n.
Lattey, C., 39 n., 50 n, 11911,, 149 n.,

174 n.
Leenhardt, F.-J., 112 n., 13 in., 1550-.

161 n., 1 66 n.
Lee-Woolf, B., 132 n.
Lestnngant, P., 29 n.
Levertofi; P. P., 106 n.
Levy, R., 28 n., 29 n., 55 n., 105 n.
Lightfoot, J. B., 145 n., 150 n., 1580.,

173 n.

Lindblom, J., 55 n., 56 n., 105 n.
Lippl,J., 87 n.
Lods, A., 23 n., 32 n.
Loewe, H., 179 n.

195

INDEX

Loisy, A., 132 n.

Lombard, Peter, 127 n., 164 n

Loofs, F., 1 66 n.

Lovsky, F., 161 n.

Luther, 17 n., 19 n., 93 n., 162 n

Lyman, Mary E , 7 n., 29 n.

Maag, V., 33n., 43n.

McCown, C. C , 20 n.

Macdonald, D. B., 42 n.

Mackintosh, H. R., 159 n.

Maclaurin, E. C., 40 n.

MacPherson, J., 93 n.

Maimonides, io6n.

Magnus, L , 95 n.

Manson, T. W., 45 n., 120 n., 123 n.,

125 n., 137 n., 152 n., 159, 164, 165 n ,

167, 171

Manson, W., 105 n., 132 n.
Marcel, P. Ch., 189
Marsh, H. G,, 153 n., 154 n., 156 n., 160 n.
Marti, K., 105 n.
Martin, H., 155 n., 157 n.
Masson, C M 145 n.
Masure, E., 127 n., 180 n., 182 n.
Matthews, I. G., 30 n., 75 n.
Maurer, C. f 105 n.
May, H. G., 86 n.
Meek, T. J., 22 n., 23 n.
Melanchthon, 183 n.
Menoud, P.-H., in n,, 163 n.
Menzies, A., 30 n.
Meyer, E., 21 n.
Meyer, H. A. "W., 151 n.
Michaeli, F., 6 n., 19 n.
Miller, R. C., 5 n.
Milton, 93 f.
Minear, P. S., 33 n.
MofFatt, J , 119 n., 132
Montefiore, C. G., 96 n., 115 n., n6n.,

179 n.

Montgomery, W., 87 n., 141 n., 153 n.
Moody, D., 119 n.
Moore, G. F., 105 n., 106 n., 115 n., 133 ru,

152 n.

Moore, W., 126 n.
Morgenstern, J., 23 n., 8<5 n.
Morris, L., 137 n.
Mowinckel, S., 36 n., 86 n., 87 n.
Moulton, W. J., 54 n.
Mirilenburg, J., 5 n., 21 n., 29 n.

Neher, A., 43 n., 128 n.
Newman, L. I., 116 n.

North, C. R., 6*n., 35 n., 59 n., 75 n.,

105 n., 132 n.
Nyberg, H. S , 105 n.

O'Callaghan, R. T., 22 n.

Oesterley, W. O. E., 23 n., 33 n., 41 n.,

42 n., 46 n., 54 n , 87 n., 93 n , 130 n ,

152 n.

Origen, 17 n.
Otto, R., 132 n.
Owens, J.J., H9n.

Pannier, E., 49 n.

Paterson, J., 33 n., 49 n.

Paterson, W. P., 39 n.

Payne, E. A., 155 n., 163 n.

Peake, A. S., 158 n.

Pedersen, J , 3 1 n., 52 n., 60 n., 87 n.

Peter Lombard. See under Lombard

Peters, J. P., 21 n.

^feifler, R. H., 19 n.

?hilo Carpasius, 18 n.

Phythian-Adams, "W. J., 6 n., 23 n., 99 n.

Pidoux, G., 86 n.

Pintonello, D., 5 n.

Ploeg, J, van der, 105 n.

Plummer, A., 152 n., 153 n.

Pohle, A., 174 n., i8on.

Porteous, N. "W., 6 n., 19 n., 30 n., 36 n.,

48 n., 54 n.

Preiss, Th., 133 n., 161 n.
Prideaux, H., 106 n.
Procksch, O., 5 n., 87 n.

Quell, G., 7 n., 29 n.

Quick, O. C., 163 n., 181 n., 183 n

Rackham, R. B., 167 n.

Rad, G. von, 19 n.

Rambaut, "W. H., 150 n., 167 n., 173 n.

Ramsey, A. M., 132 n.

Rankin, O. S., 71 n.

Rashdall, H., 132 n.

Rashi, 128 n.

Rawlinson, A. E. J., 132 n.

Reid, J. K. S., 149 n., 161 n., 163 n.

Renard, H., 49 n.

Rengstor K. H., 7 n.

Riesenfeld, HL, 133 n.

Rietschl, G., i84n.

Roberts, A., 150 n., 167 n., 173 n.

Robinson, H. W., 6, 33 n., 39 n., 43 n.

51 n., 52 n., 60, 74 n., 132 n., 134
Robinson, J. A., 153 n.

196

INDEX

Robinson, T. H., 23 n., 54 n., 87 n.
Rowley, E. M., 133 n.
Rnfinus, 92 n.
Rupert of Deutz, 180
Rylaarsdam, J. C,, 64. n.

Salmond, S. D. F., 137 n.

Saunders, T. B , 2 n.

Schade, L., 92 n.

Schleiermacher, F., 159 n., 162 n.

Schmidt, H., 87 n.

Schmidt, K. L., 7 n.

Schneckenburger, M , 151 n.

Schneider, J., 141 n., 153 n., 154 n., 169 n.

Schniewind, J., 132 n.

Schofield,J. N., 54 n.

Schrenk, G., 7 n., 56 n.

Schtirer, E., 106 n , 152 n., 153 n.

Schweitzer, A., 141 n., 145 n., 153 n.

Scott, E. F , 122 n.

Scott, R. B. Y., 5 n., 37 n.

Scotus, Duns, 176

Sellin, E., 5 n., 65 n., 87 n.

Selwyn, E. G., 139 n., 177 n , 183 n.

Shires, H. H., 5 n.

Simon, M., 46 n.

Simon, Marcel, 21 n., 115 n.

Simpson, C. A., 76 n.

Sixtus of Sienna, 93 n.

Sjdberg, E., 25 ru

Slotki, I. W., 105 n.

Smart, J. D., 5 n.

Smith, C. Ryder, 6 n., 49 n., 75 n.

Smith, G. A., 108 n.

Smith, J. M. Powis, 33 n., 150 n.

Smith, K. Gregor, 5 n.

Smith, R. Gregor, 5 n.

Snaith, N. H., 6 n., 52 n., 158 n., 166 n.,

172 n.

Sparks, H. F. D., 91 n.
Spens, W., 183 n.
Srawley, J. H., 126 n., 174, *7<5 n., 180,

182

Staerk, W., 133 n.
StJihlin, G., 7 n.
Stamm, J. J., 5 n.
Stauflfer, E., 7 n., 152 n.
Steinmann, J., 56 n., 87 n.
Steuernagel, C., 5 n.
Stewart, J. S., 159 n.
Stone, Darwell, 175 n., 178 n., 180 n.,

i82n.
Strack, H. L., 133 n., 137 n., 152 n.

Sutdiffe, E. F., 62 n.
Swallow, J. E., 156 n.
Swete, H. B., 105 n.

Tasker, R. V. G., 131 n.

Taylor, V., 105 n., 122 n., 128 n., 131 n

132 , 134 , 138 n,, 139 n.
Thayer, J. H., 136 n.
Theis,J, 87 n.
Thomas, J., 151 n.
Torrey, C. C., 29 n., 132 n.
Tournay, R. J M $6 n., 105 n.
Trethowan, Dom ffltyd, 180 n.
Tyndale, 93 n.

Vaux, R. de, H4n.

Vischer, "W., 19 n., 20 n., 23 n.

Volz, P., 23 n , 56 n., 105 n., 132 n.

Vogel, G.J. L., 105 n.

Vnczen, Th. C., 6 n., 76 n., 105 n.

Wade, G. W., 87 n.

Wallls, R. E., 155 n., 176 n., 18411.

Wand, J. W. C., 8 n.

Weiss, J., 132 n.

Welch, A. C., 30 n., 36 n., 40 n., 48 n.,

52 n., 54 n., 61 n., 87 n., 130 n.
Wellhausen, J., 30 n.
Wensinck, A. J., 23 n., 48 n.
Widengren, G., 48 n.
White, R. E., 161 n.

William of Auvergne See under Auvergne
Williams, A. Lukyn, 150 n., 158 n., 173 n.
Williams, N. P., 1550., 1580-, 162 n.,

170 n., I72n., 177 n.
Willoughby, H. R., 5 n.
Wilson, W. E., 137 n.
Windisch, H., 155 n.
Winnett, F. V., 23 n.
Wolf H. W., 105 n., 132 n., 134 n.
"Wordsworth., C., 18 n.
Wright, G. E., 5 n., 22 n., 29 n., 74 n.,

76 n M 98 n.

Wiirthwein, E., 33 n., 42 n.
Wyon, O., 13 in.

Young, W. G., 171 n.

Zarb, S. M., 93 n.
Zeitkn, S., 151 n.
Ziegler, J., 29 n.
Zinunerli, W., 120 n.
Zuckermandel, M. S., 46 n.
Zwingli, 175 n., 180

197

INDEX

(c) TEXTS

Genesis

xv. 14 .

io6n.

XII. 22 ff.

82 n.

i .

77 XV '. 3

45 n

XIX. 18

115 n.

i. I flf. .

i. 27

73 n. xxvm - j6
75 xxxii. 12

53 n.
18 n

XXI
XXI. Ijff.

22 n.
Sin.

* **/
1. 28 .

76 n. xxxiii.3

53 n.

xxii. 14

82 n.

ii. 4 flf.

73 n-

XXII. 22

15 n

li. 16

74 n - Deuteronomy

xxii 27

85 n

iii. 23

74 n. .

iv. I
iv. 4, 8

26 n. * 3<5 -
85 n. v

18 n

22

2 Kings

iv. 26 .

26 n. v. 2f. -

70 n.

XXlli. 21 ff .

53 n.

XV. I if.

74 n. v.7 - - -

64 n

xviii .
xviii 16 flf. .

i 5 n. v.8 . .
72 n. vi. 4 1..

64 n.
44 n.

i Chronicles

vi. 5 -

103 n.

xxi. i .

62

vii. 7

6911.

Exodus

vii. 9 .

68 n.

i i 13 flf.

26 n- x :. 13 *

77 n.

2 Chronicles

vi. 2 .23 n

., 25 n- =*.!=

37 n.

xxiv. 20

91 n.

vi. 7 .
xii. ii flf.

25 n . xvi. 3 .

. XVlll 20 ff. .

54 n.
37 n.

XXV I ff.
XXX I ff.

53 n.
53 n.

xii. 21 flf.

53n . xxui.6 . .

103 n.

XXXV. I ff. .

53 n.

xii. 43 ff. .

53 n- ^Y' 16

15 n.

xii. 48 .
xiii. 3 .

106 n- xxv !' x ff * '
54 n. xxvm -

54 n.
85 n.

Ezra

xv. 16 .

105 n-

vi. 19

53 n.

xix. 4

69 n * Joshua

xix. 5 .

41 n-

XX ...

22,64 v - lo

53 n.

Nehemiah

xx.3 .

6411.

ix. 17

67 n.

xx.4 .

xxiv. 8

64 n - j^

114 n. J *

x x yii ...

64 n. viii. 27

64 n.

Job

XXXIV ...

<5 4 xi. 24 .

63 n.

vii. 9 .

62 n.

xxxiv. 6

670.

X. 21 ff

62 n.

xxxiv. 17

4 n - . Samuel

XlV. 22

62 n.

xxxiv. 25

53 n. oamuei

xix. 25 ff.

62 n.

xv. 3 .

15 n.

xix. 25

101 n.

Leviticus

XV. 22 .

xxvi. 19

40 n.
63 n.

xlii. 5 f

85 n.

i-4 . .

Sin*

iii. 2, 8, 13 .

5In " 2 Samuel

Psalms

v. 5 f. .

44 n-

xxii. 27 (28 f.) .

108 n.

xvi. 21

45 n' ^5

22 n.

xxx. 9 (10) .

62 n.

xvii. ii

179 n* ^ T 3

50 n.

xl

50 n.

xix. 18 . 44 n.,

103 n- *": 2 3 -

62 n.

xl. 6 flf. (7 ff.)

50 n.

=ou.5 . .

xxiv. i

15 n.
62

xkx. 14 (15)
xlix. 15 (16)

62 n.
62 n.

Numbers

1.

50 n.

v.6 .

44 n ^ Ki'^s

1. 5

50 n.
50 n.

ix. 6f

53 n. vi. i .

15 n.

1. 14, 25

50 n.

xiv. 24

18 n. xL 29 ff

82 n.

H

50 n.

198

INDEX

li. 16 (18 f.) . 48 n.

xxxv. 9 . . 101 n.

vii. 3 .

40 n.

li. 19 (21) . 48 n.

xh. 14 . . . joi n.

vii. 13 .

67 n.

box. 30 f. (31 f.) . 50 n.

xlii. 1-4 . 55 n.

vii. 14 .

40 n.

Ixxiii. 23 f. , . 62 n.

xlii. 2, 4 . . 104 n.

vii. 22

41 n.

Ixxxvi. 15 . . 67 n.

xlii. 6 . .28 n., non.

vii. 22 .

31 n.

Ixxxviii. 10 ff. (n ff,) 62 n.

xliii. 10 f . . 28 n.

vii. 25 .

67 n.

Ixxxix. 2 f., 9, 34 . 68 n.

xlui. 14 . . 101 n.

xi. 7 .

67 n.

Ixxxix. 35 .68 n.

xliv. 6 . 28 n , 64 n., 101 n.

xii. 3, 6

71 n.

GUI. 8 . . 67 n.

xliv. 8 . . 28 n.

XV. I .

41 n.

ciii. 13 . . 74 n.

xliv. 22 f. . 101 n.

xvi. 4 .

71 n.

cxv. 17 62 n.

xliv. 24 . 28 n., 101 n.

xx. 7 flf

68 n.

cxxxix. 8 62 n.

xlv. 5 , 18, 21 f. . 28 n.

xxiii. 5 f. . 95 n.,

lo8n.

cxlv. 8 . 67 n.

xlv. 22 . 24 n., 28 n.

xxiii. 18, 22 .

74 n.

xlvii. 4 . . 101 n.

xxv. 4 .

67 n.

Proverbs

xlviii. 20 . . 101 n.
xlix. 1-6 . . 55 n.

xxvi. 5
xxvi. 6

67 n.
40 n.

i. 7 - - 45 n.

xlix. i . . 78 n.

xxvi. 8, n, 16

37 n.

xv. 8 . . 46 n.

xlix. 6 . . . 104 n.

xxix. 19

67 n.

xxi. 3 . . 46 n.

xlix. 7 . .68 n., 101 n.

xxxi. 29 f. .

71 n.

xxi. 27 46 n.

xlix. 26 . . 101 n.

xxxi. 31 ff. 72 n.,

H4n.,

1. 4-9 . . 55 n., 104 n.

132 n,

146 n.

Ecclesiastes

1. 6 55 n., 57 n., 78 n.
li. 4 ff. . . 108 n.

xxxii. 33
xxxv. 14 f. .

67 n.
67 n.

v i (iv. 17) . . 46 n.

li. 10 . . . 101 n.

xxxvi. 32

34 n.

lii. 9 . . 101 n.

xxxviii. 4 flf. .

85 n.

Song of Songs

lii. 13-lui. 12 55, 104 n.
IK. 15 . . . 104 n.

xliv. 4 .

67 n.

i. 13 . . .17 n.
ii 15 . . . 18 n.

liii . 105 n., 107, ii 8,
129, 132, 133 n., 134 f.,

Ezekiel

iv. 12 . . 18 n

13 8 f., 143

xxxvu. i fF. . .

62 n.

vi. 8 . . . 18 n.

liii. 2-12 . . 55 n.

Xlv. 21

53 n.

lui. 4 f. . 56 n., 130 n.

Isaiah

hii. 4 . . . 138 n.
lui. 5 78 n., 104 n , 106,

Darnel

i. ii ff. . . 32 n.

144 n.

ii. 44 -

io8n.

i. 15 . .38 n.

liii. 6 . .56 n., 144 n.

vii. 13 .

125

ii. 2 flf. 86 n., 95 n., 108 n.

liii. 8 . . 104 n., 144 n.

vii. 14, 22, 27

io8n,

ii. 3 f. . . . 86 n.

liii. 9 . .57 n., 104 n.

xii. 2f.

62 n

ii. 3 . . lion.

liii. 10 . ,55 n., 104 n.

iv. 3 . -72 n.

liii. ii 56 n., 104 n., 130 n.

Hosea

vi. i . . 43 n , 57 n.

liii. 12 104 n., 130 n., 136 n.

vi. 6

32 n

vi. 3,5 . 80 n.

Hv. 5, 8 . . 101 n.

171 ft

vi. 6 f. . . . 69 n.

lix. 20 . . . 101 n.

VI. o . . .

xi. 8 .

67x1.

vi. 8 . . . 69 n.
vii. 14 . . . 119 f.

be. 16 . . . 101 n.
Ixii. 12 . . 101 n.

xiii. 4 .

64 n.

viii. 23-ix. 6 . . 87 n.

iTrn'i- 4 . . . 101 n.

ix. 2 ff. (i ff.) 86 n., 87 n.,

Ixiii. 9 . . . 101 n.

Joel

95 n , 108 n.

boii. 16 - . 101 n.

u. 13 .

67 n.

x. 5 . 68 n.

bdv. 8 . . . 74 n.

x. 7, 1 1 . . 68 u.

Ixv. 17 fit . 108 n.

Amos

x. 12 . . .68 n.

x. 20 f. , . 115 n.

xi. i ff. 86 n., 87 n., 95 n.,

Jeremiah

i. 3 C . . .
ii. 8 .

82 n.
Son.

108 n.

vi. 19 . . . 38 n

iii. 2 . . 78 n.,

128 n.

xxvi. 19 . 62 EL

vi. 20 . . . 32 n.

iii. 7 .

69 n.

199

INDEX

v. i . . . 80 n.

vii. 29 .

12311.

John

iv. ii . . 72 n., 115 n.

viii. 17

13 8 n.

i.29 .

. 134 n.

v. 12 . . . Son.

IX. 2, 5

123 n.

iii. 3 .

. 137 n.

*. 21 ff. . . So n.
". 21 . . 32n.
v. 24 . . . 38 n.
v. 25 - . 30 n., 42 n.

x. 37 -
xi. 28 .
xii. 18 ff.
xii. 18 .

39 n.
123 n.
13 8 n.
78 n.

iii. 16 .
iii. 18 .
iv. i .
vi. 27 .

. 134, 141 ru
. 140 n.
. 154 n.
39 n.

^iii. 5 . . So n.

xvi. 21 .

13 m.

vi. 35 .

. 123 n.

onak

xviii. 10
xx. 28 . . 126 n.,

159 n.
131 n.

vi. 53
vi. 53 .

. 184 n.
184

iv. 2 . . .67 n.

Micah

iv. 1-3 . 95 n.
iv. 2 f. . . . 86 n.
iv. 2 . . . no

xxiii. 35
xxiv. 23 , 36
xxvi. 26
xxvi. 27 f. .
xxvi. 28
xxvi. 64
xxviii. 19

91 n.
inn.
123 n.
178 n.

125 n.
167 n.

vi. 56 .
viii. 12.
x. 30 .
xii. 38 .
xiii. 8 ff.
xiv. 6 .
xiv. 9 .

. 178 n.
. 123 n.
. 123 n.
. 138 n.
. 185 n.
. 123 n.
. 123 n.

v. 2 ff. (i ff.) 95, * 108 n.

XV.

. 177 n.

v. 8-vii. 7 . 33 n.
vi. 6 ff. -33 n., 39 n.

Mark
i. 22 .

123 n.

xv. 5 .

xviii. 28

. 141 n
. 134 n.

vi. 8 . . 33 n., 77 n.

ii 5, 9

123 n.

Acts

viii. 31

131 n.

Habakkuk

x. 45 78 n., 105 n.,

126 n.,

ii. 41 .

. 154 n.

131 ru,

132 n.

iii. 13, 26

. 138 n.

iii. 6 . . . 105 n.

xii. 28 ff.

81 n.

iv. 27, 30

. 138 n.

xiii. 21, 32 .

inn.

v. 29 .

82 n.

Zechariah

xiv. 22 . 123 n.,

177 n.

vii. 56 .

. 125 n.

.

xiv. 24 114 n., 131 n., 134,

viii. 12 ,

16. . 154 n.

1. 1 91 **

177 n.

viii. 32 ff.

. 138 n.

Malachi

Luke

viii. 37.
viii. 38-

. 167 n.
. 154 n.

L ii . 149 a-

ix. 18 .

. 154 n.

i-iii

119 n.

x. 35

. 150 n.

Tobit

i. 5-ii. 52

119 n.

x.48 .

. 154 n.

i. 34

119 n.

xiii. a

. 88 n.

ir. 15 (16) . . 103 n.

iii 23-38

119 n.

xv. 5 .

. 159 ru

iii. 9 .

154 n.

xvi. 3 .

. 159 n.

Ecclesiasticus

v. 14 .
v. 20, 23 .

104 n.
12311.

xvi. 15.
xvi, 31.

. 154 n.
. 167 n.

xxxiv. 1 8 f. (xxxL 21 ff.)

vi 6 .

i8in.

xvi. 33-

. 154 ru, 167 n.

46 n.

vi.45 .

84 n.

xvii. 2.

. 135 ru

Matthew
i. 23 . . . 119 n.

vii 50 .

IX. 22 .

x. 30 ff.

140x1.
131 n.
103 n.

xbc. 3 ff.
xxvi. 23

. 154 n.
. 135 n.

iii. i . . 154 n.

xi 51 .

91 n.

iiL 10 . .84 n., 154 ru

xiv. 26.

39 n.

Rotnttns

iii. 12 . . . 84 n.

xvii. 14

104 XL

i. 16 .

. 148 n.

iii. 16 . . . 128 XL

xvii. 25

131x1.

iii 25 .

. 137 n.

v. 10 . . . 144 n.

xxi 8 .

in n.

iv. 25 .

. 136 n.

v. 21 ff. . . 123 n.

xxii. 19 , 123 ru,

176 n.

v. 9 .

. 136 n.

v. 21 , 27 , 33 , 38 .

xxii. 19 b, 20 .

i7<5iL

vi

16*8, 170

43 .14 n., 102 XL

xxii. 30 113 ru, 178 n.

vi. sff.

. 169 n.

v. 43 . . . 103 ru

xxiv. 26

135 n.

vi. 4 .

. 142 n.

viuitffF. . . 84ru

xxiv. 44

91 n.

. iSiru

200

INDEX

vi. 5

141 n.

Philippians

iv. 12 .

15 n.

vi. 8 .

142 n.

ii. 7 .

m

138

iv. 19 .

146 n.

vi. ii .
viii. 9 f.

169 n.

iii. 2 f. .
iii. 8ff.

158 n.
141 n.

Revelation

viii. 10.

145 n.

iii. 10 .

. 145 n.,

170 n.

iii. 16 .

78 n.

viii. n .

172 n.

viii. 17.

145 n^

Colossians

Difache

viii. 29.

101 n*

x. 9

167 n"

i.24 .

.

145 n.

xiv. 3 .

150 n.

xi. 13 ff.

78 n-

ii. ii ff.

.

157 n.

ii. 12 .

.

171 n.

Mtshnah

i Corinthians
1.9 -

68 n.

ii. 14 .

i

Thessalonians

137 n.

Yoma, viii. 9.
Pirqe Aboth, ii. i .

46x1.
47 n.

i.24 -

139 n.

iv. 15 .

.

inn.

Tosephta

v. 7 -

X. I ff. .

139 n.
149 n.

i Timothy

Sanhedrin, xiii. 2 .
Yoma, v. 9 .

150 n.
46 n.

X. 2

17 n.

ii. 5

m

143 n.

xi. 24 ff.

XL 24 f.

179 n.
176 n.

ii. 6 .

105 n.

Babylonian Talmud

xL 25 . . 113 n.,

xi. yj . T 4O n.,

13 in.
iSin.

2 Timothy

Berachoth, 23 a
Shabbath, 3ia

460.
103 n.

xii. 46

ii. 13

.

<58n.

Yebamoth, 47a

152 n.

xv. 3

139 n.

Yebamoth, 47b

152 n.

Hebrews

Yebamoth, 78a

155 n.

2 Corinthians

i. 5

v. 17 .

145 n.
137 n.

vi. 6 140 n., 146 n.,
vii, 26
ix. 6 ff.
ix. 13 f.

i8in.
136 n.
139 n.
135 n.

Ketuboth, ila

Sanliedrin, 9pa
Kenthoth, 9a

155 n.
152 n.
95 n.
lodn.

v. 19 .

127 n.

ix. 14 .

.

13601.

-

V. 21 .

143 n.

ix. 22 .

.

135 n.

Stjre

xii. 8 ff.

8511.

ix. 28 .

.

136 n.

Numbers, 108 .

lodn.

X. 10 .

a

139 n.

Galatians

x. 29 .

xiii. 20.

; ;

146 n.
146 n.

Midrash Rabba
Leviticus, ii. 12

46 n.

ii. 20 . 141 n.,

144 n.,

170 n., 179 n.,

iSin.

i Peter

Mekilta de R. Simeon ben

v. 6 .

158 n.

ii. I-IO

.

183 n.

Yohai

ii, 21 ff.

.

139 .

On Exodus, xii. 48

io6n.

Ephesians

ii. 24 .

.I38n.,

i<S9n.

Gerim

i. 7 .
ii. i ff. . .142 n.,

137 n.
158 n.

ijohn

i. i .

152 n.

iv. 5 .

162 n.

1.7

. .

138 n.

i.3 -

152 n.

V. 2 .

137 n-

ii. 2

. 105 n., 138 a

ii. 4

106 n.

201