{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_9492/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_9492","id":"gutenberg_9492","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/9492","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.","Bible -- Study and teaching","Category: Religion/Spirituality"],"text":"Produced by Charles Aldarondo, Tiffany Vergon, Bob McKillip\nand PG Distributed Proofreaders. HTML version by Al Haines\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE MENDENHALL LECTURES, THIRD SERIES DELIVERED AT DEPAUW UNIVERSITY\n\n\nUNDERSTANDING THE SCRIPTURES\n\nBY\n\nFRANCIS J. McCONNELL\n\nBishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n      FOREWORD\n   I. PRELIMINARY\n  II. THE BOOK OF LIFE\n III. THE BOOK OF HUMANITY\n  IV. THE BOOK OF GOD\n   V. THE BOOK OF CHRIST\n  VI. THE BOOK OF THE CROSS\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\nThe Mendenhall Lectures, founded by Rev. Marmaduke H. Mendenhall, D.D.,\nof the North Indiana Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, are\ndelivered annually in De Pauw University to the public without any\ncharge for admission. The object of the donor was \"to found a perpetual\nlectureship on the evidences of the Divine Origin of Christianity and\nthe inspiration and authority of the Holy Scriptures. The lecturers\nmust be persons of high and wide repute, of broad and varied\nscholarship, who firmly adhere to the evangelical system of Christian\nfaith. The selection of lecturers may be made from the world of\nChristian scholarship, without regard to denominational divisions. Each\ncourse of lectures is to be published in book form by an eminent\npublishing house and sold at cost to the faculty and students of the\nUniversity.\"\n\nLectures previously published: 1913, The Bible and Life, Edwin Holt\nHughes; 1914, The Literary Primacy of the Bible, George Peck Eckman.\n\nGEORGE R. GROSE,\n\nPresident De Pauw University.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nPRELIMINARY\n\nThe problem as to the understanding of the Scriptures is with some no\nproblem at all. All we have to do is to take the narratives at their\nface meaning. The Book is written in plain English, and all that is\nnecessary for its comprehension is a knowledge of what the words mean.\nIf we have any doubts, we can consult the dictionary. The plain man\nought to have no difficulty in understanding the Bible.\n\nNobody can deny the clearness of the English of the Scriptures.\nNevertheless, the plain man does have trouble. How far would the\nordinary intelligence have to read from the first chapter of Genesis\nbefore finding itself in difficulties? There are accounts of events\nutterly unlike anything which we see happening in the life around us,\nevents which seem to us to contradict the course of nature's procedure.\nThere are points of view foreign to our way of looking at things. More\nthan that, there seem to be actual contradictions between various\nportions of the books. And, above all, the way of life marked out in\nthe Book seems to lead off toward mystery. To save our lives we have to\nlose them. All the precepts of common sense seem set at defiance by\nsome passages of the Book. How can we explain the hold of such a book\non the world's life?\n\nWhen once the problem of the understanding of the Scriptures is raised,\nvarious solutions are offered, all of which contribute a measure of\nhelp, but most of which do not greatly get us ahead. For example, we\nare told that the Book is translated literature, and that if we could\nget back to the original narratives in the original languages, we would\nfind our perplexities vanishing. There is no question that a knowledge\nof Greek and Hebrew does aid us in an understanding of the Scriptures,\nbut this aid commonly extends only to the meaning of particular words.\nOne who knows enough of Greek or Hebrew to enter sympathetically into\nthe life of which those languages were the expression is prepared to\nsense the scriptural atmosphere better than one who has not such\nequipment. Very few Scripture readers, however, are thus qualified to\nunderstand Greek and Hebrew. Very few ministers of the gospel are so\ntrained as to be able to pass upon shades of meaning of Greek or Hebrew\nwords against the judgment of those who teach these languages in the\nschools. With graduation from theological school most ministers put\nHebrew to one side; and many pay no further attention to Greek. Even a\ntrained biblical student is very careful not to question the authority\nof the professional linguistic experts. Apart from sidelights upon the\nmeaning of this or that passage, there is very little that the biblical\nstudent can get from Greek or Hebrew which is not available in\nimportant translations. We cannot solve the greater difficulties in\nbiblical study by carrying our investigations back to the study of the\noriginal languages as such. The fact is that emphasis upon the\nimportance of mastery of Greek and Hebrew for an insight into\nscriptural meanings rests largely upon a theory of literal inspiration\nof the biblical narratives. It requires only a cursory reading to see\nthat the narratives in English cannot claim to be strictly inerrant, so\nthat the upholder of inerrancy is driven to the position that the\ninerrancy is in the documents as originally written. No doctrine of\ninerrancy, however, can explain away the puzzles which confront us, for\nexample, in the accounts of the creation as given us in the early\nchapters of Genesis, or throw light upon the possibility of a soul's\npassing from moral death to life.\n\nGreat help is promised us by those who maintain that the modern methods\nof critical biblical study give us the key to scriptural meanings.\nThere is no doubt that many doors have been opened by critical methods.\nNow that the flurries of misunderstanding which attended the first\napplication of such methods to biblical study have passed on, we see\nthat some solid results have been gained. In so far as our difficulties\narise from questions of authorship and date of writing, the critical\nmethods have brought much relief. Even very orthodox biblicists no\nlonger insist that it is necessary to oppose the teaching that the\nfirst five books of the Bible were written at different times and by\ndifferent men. In fact, there is no reason to quarrel with the theory\nthat many parts of these books are not merely anonymous, but are\ndocuments produced by the united effort of narrators and correlators\nreaching through generations--the narratives often being transmitted\norally from fathers to sons. There is no reason for longer arguing\nagainst the claim that the book of Isaiah as it stands in our\nScriptures is composed of documents written at widely separated\nperiods. It is permissible even from the standpoint of orthodoxy to\nassign a late date to the book of Daniel. No harm is wrought when we\ninsist that the book of Mark must have priority in date among the\nGospels, and that Matthew and Luke are built in part from Mark as a\nfoundation. It is not dangerous to face the facts which cause the\nprolonged debate over the authorship of the fourth Gospel. It is not\nheresy to teach that the dates of the epistles must be rearranged\nthrough the findings of modern scholarship. There is not only no danger\nin a hospitable attitude toward modern scholarship, but many\ndifficulties disappear through adjusting ourselves to present-day\nmethods. If contradictions appear in a document hitherto considered a\nunit, the contradictions are at least measurably done away with when\nthe document is seen to be a composite report from the points of view\nof different authors. The critical method has been of immense value in\nenforcing upon us that the scriptural books were written each with a\ndistinctive intention, apart from the purpose to represent the facts in\nthe method of a newspaper reporter or of a scientific investigator. In\na sense many of the more important scriptural documents were of the\nnature of pamphlets or tracts for the times in which they were written.\nThe author was combating a heresy, or supplementing a previous\nstatement which seemed to him to be inadequate, or seeking to adjust a\nreligious conception to enlarging demands. The biblical writers are\ncommentators on or interpreters of the truth which they conceive to be\nessential.\n\nMaking most generous allowances, however, for the advantages of the\ncritical methods, we must use them with considerable care. Results like\nthose suggested above seem to be well established, but there is always\npossibility of the critic's becoming a mere specialist with the purely\ntechnical point of view. Suppose the critic holds so to the passion for\nanalysis that for him analysis becomes everything. We may then have a\nsingle verse cut into three or four pieces, each assigned to a\ndifferent author, the authors separated by long periods. Even if the\nolder narratives are composite, the process of welding or compression\nwas so thorough that detailed analyses are now out of the question.\nApart from its broader contentions, the method of the critical school\nmust be used tentatively and without dogmatism. Moreover, we must\nalways remember that the critical student comes to his task with\nassumptions which are oftentimes more potent with him from his very\nblindness to their existence. Assumption in scientific investigation is\ninevitable. Suppose a critic to be markedly under the influence of some\nevolutionary hypothesis. Suppose him to believe that the formula which\nmakes progress a movement from the simple to the complex can be traced\nin detail in the advance of society. He is prepared to believe that in\npractically every case the simple has preceded the complex. He will\nforthwith untangle the biblical narrative to get at the ideal\nevolutionary arrangement, ignoring the truth that except in the most\ngeneral fashion progress cannot thus be traced. In the actual life of\nsocieties the progress, especially of ideas, is often from the complex\nto the simple. Many evolutionists maintain that movement is now\nforward, now backward, now diagonal, and now by a \"short cut\"; but if\nthe evolutionary critic sticks closely to his preconceived formula\nabout progress as always from the simple to the complex, he can lead us\nastray. Again, almost all great prophetic announcements are ahead of\ntheir time. They seem out of place at the date of their first\nutterance--interruptions, interjections hard to fit into an orderly\nhistoric scheme. Or suppose the critic to be a student of the\nscientific school which will not allow for the play of any forces\nexcepting as they openly reveal themselves, the school that will not\nallow for backgrounds of thought or for atmospheres which surround\nconceptions. Such a student is very apt to maintain, for example, that\nPaul knew only so much of the life of Jesus as he mentions in the\nepistles. Such a student cannot assume that Paul ever took anything for\ngranted. We can see at once that a method so professedly exact as this\nmay be dangerously out of touch with the human processes of the life of\nindividuals and of societies. Or suppose still further that the\nbiblical student holds a set of scientific assumptions which are\nextremely naturalistic; that is to say, suppose that he assumes that\nnothing has ever happened which in any way departs from the natural\norder. We have only to remind ourselves that the natural order of a\nparticular time is the order as that time conceives it; but it is\nmanifestly hazardous to limit events in the world of matter to the\nscientific conceptions of any one day. To take a single illustration,\nthe radical student of the life of Jesus of a generation ago cast out\nforthwith from the Gospel accounts everything which suggested the\nmiraculous. The conceptions of the order of nature which obtained a\ngeneration ago did not allow even for works of healing of the sort\nrecorded in the Gospels. At the present time radical biblical criticism\nmakes considerable allowance for such works. Discovery of the power of\nmental suggestion and of the influence of mind over body has opened the\ndoor to the return of some of the wonders wrought by Jesus to a place\namong historic facts. This does not mean that the radical student is\nany more friendly to miracles than before. We are not here raising the\nquestion of miracles as such, but we do insist that an assumption as to\nwhat the natural order may or may not allow can be fraught with peril\nin the hands of critical students of the Scriptures. We say again that\nwhile, in general, the larger contentions of the biblical school can be\nlooked upon as established beyond reasonable doubt; and while, in\ngeneral, the methods of the school are productive of good, yet, because\nof the part that assumption plays in the fashioning of all critical\ntools, the assumptions must be scrutinized with all possible care. A\ngood practical rule is to read widely from the critics, to accept what\nthey generally agree upon, to hold very loosely anything that seems\n\"striking\" or \"brilliant.\" This is a field in which originality must be\ndiscounted. There is so little check upon the imagination.\n\nIt is but a step from the consideration of the critical methods in\nbiblical study to that of the historical methods in the broader sense.\nMany students who are out of patience with the more narrowly critical\nprocesses maintain that the broader historical methods are of vast\nvalue in biblical discussion. Here, again, we must admit the large\nmeasure of justice in the claim. We can see at once that the same\nreservations must be made as in the case of the critical methods. The\nassumptions play a determining part. If we are on our guard against any\ntricks that assumptions may play, we can eagerly expect the historical\nmethods to aid us greatly.\n\nWe have come to see that any revelation to be really a revelation must\nspeak in the language of a particular time. But speaking in the\nlanguage of a particular time implies at the outset very decided\nlimitations. The prophets who arise to proclaim any kind of truth must\nclothe their ideas in the thought terms of a particular day and can\naccomplish their aims only as they succeed in leading the spiritual\nlife of their day onward and upward. Such a prophet will accommodate\nhimself to the mental and moral and religious limitations of the time\nin which he speaks. Only thus can he get a start. It is inevitable,\nthen, that along with the higher truth of his message there will appear\nthe marks of the limitations of the mold in which the message is cast.\nThe prophet must take what materials he finds at hand, and with these\nmaterials direct the people to something higher and better.\nFurthermore, in the successive stages through which the idea grows we\nmust expect to find it affected by all the important factors which in\nany degree determine its unfolding. The first stage in understanding\nthe Scriptures is to learn what a writer intended to say, what he meant\nfor the people of his day. To do this we must rely upon the methods\nwhich we use in any historical investigation. The Christian student of\nthe Scriptures believes that the Bible contains eternal truths for all\ntime, truths which are above time in their spiritual values. Even so,\nhowever, the truth must first be written for a particular time and that\ntime the period in which the prophet lived. When the Christian speaks\nof the Scriptures as containing a revelation for all time, he refers to\ntheir essential spiritual value. The best way to make that essential\nspiritual value effective for the after times is to sink it deep into\nthe consciousness of a particular time. This gives it leverage, or\nfocus for the outworking of its forces. No matter how limited the\nconceptions in which the spiritual richness first took form, those\nconceptions can be understood by the students who look back through the\nages, while the spiritual value itself shines out with perennial\nfreshness. Paradoxical as it may sound, the truths which are of most\nvalue for all time are those which first get themselves most thoroughly\ninto the thought and feeling of some one particular time. Let us look\nat the opening chapters of Genesis for illustration. The historical\nstudent points out to us that the science of the first chapters of\nGenesis is not peculiar to the Hebrew people, that substantially\nsimilar views of the stages through which creation moved are to be\nfound in the literatures of surrounding peoples. A well-known type of\nstudent would therefore seek at one stroke to bring the first chapters\nof Genesis down to the level of the scriptures of the neighbors of the\nHebrews. He would then discount all these narratives alike by reference\nto modern astronomy, geology, and biology. But the difference between\nthe Hebrew account and the other accounts lies in this, that in the\nHebrew statement the science of a particular time is made the vehicle\nof eternally superb moral and spiritual conceptions concerning man and\nconcerning man's relation to the Power that brought him into being. The\nworth of these conceptions even in that early statement few of us would\nbe inclined to question. Assuming that any man or set of men became in\nthe old days alive to the value of such religious ideas, how could they\nspeak them forth except in the language of their own day? They had to\nspeak in their own tongue, and speaking in that tongue they had to use\nthe thought terms expressed by that tongue. They accepted the science\nof their day as true, and they utilized that science for the sake of\nbodying forth the moral and spiritual insights to which they had\nattained. The inadequacy of early Hebrew science and its likeness to\nBabylonian and Chaldean science do not invalidate the worth of the\nspiritual conceptions of Genesis. This ought to be apparent even to the\nproverbial wayfaring man. The loftiest spiritual utterances are often\nclad in the poorest scientific draperies. Who would dare deny the worth\nof the great moral insights of Dante? And who, on the other hand, would\ninsist upon the lasting value of the science in which his deep\npenetrations are uttered? And so with Milton. Dr. W. F. Warren has\nshown the nature of the material universe as pictured in Milton's\n\"Paradise Lost.\" In passing from heaven to hell one would descend from\nan upper to a lower region of a sphere, passing through openings at the\ncenters of other concentric spheres on the way down. Nothing more\nforeign to modern science can be imagined; yet we do not cast aside\n\"Paradise Lost\" because of the crudity of its view of the physical\nsystem.\n\nAssuming that the biblical prophets were to have any effect whatever,\nin what language could they speak except that of their own time? Their\nposition was very similar to that of the modern preacher who uses\npresent-day ideas of the physical universe as instruments to proclaim\nmoral and spiritual values. Nobody can claim that modern scientific\ntheories are ultimate, and nobody can deny, on the other hand, that\nvast good is done in the utilization of these conceptions for high\nreligious purposes.\n\nA minister once sought in a sermon on the marvels of man's constitution\nto enforce his conceptions by speaking of the instantaneousness with\nwhich a message flashed to the brain through the nervous system is\nheeded and acted upon. He said that the touch of red-hot iron upon a\nfinger-tip makes a disturbance which is instantly reported to the brain\nfor action. A scientific hearer was infinitely disgusted. He said that\nall such disturbances are acted upon in the spinal cord. He could see\nno value, therefore, even in the main point of the minister's sermon\nbecause of the minister's mistaken conception of nervous processes. I\nsuppose very few of us know whether this scientific objection was well\ntaken or not. Very few of us, however, would reject the entire sermon\nbecause of an erroneous illustration; and yet sometimes all the\nessentials of the Scriptures are discounted because of flaws no more\nconsequential than that suggested in this illustration. The Scriptures\naim to declare a certain idea of God, a certain idea of man, and a\ncertain idea of the relations between God and man. Those ideas are\nclothed in the garments of successive ages. The change in the fashions\nand adequacy of the garments does not make worthless the living truth\nwhich the garments clothe. Jesus himself lived deeply in his own time\nand spoke his own language and worked through the thought terms which\nwere part of the life of his time. Some biblical readers have been\ngreatly disturbed in recent years by the discovery of the part which\nso-called apocalyptic thought-forms play in the teaching of Jesus. The\nfact is that these conceptions were the commonest element in all later\nJewish thinking. Jesus could not have lived when he did without making\napocalyptic terms the vehicle for his doctrines. We have come to see\nthat the manner of the coming of the kingdom of Jesus is not so\nimportant as the character of that kingdom.\n\nNot only must a prophet speak in the language of a definite time, but\nhe must speak to men as he finds them. This being so, we must expect\nthat revelations will in a sense be accommodated to the apprehension of\nthe day of their utterance. The minds of men are in constant movement.\nIf the prophet were to have before him minds altogether at a\nstandstill, he might well despair of accomplishing great results by his\nmessage. He would be forced to think of the intelligence of this day as\na sort of vessel which he could fill with so much and no more. But\nwhether the prophets have through the ages had any theoretic\nunderstanding of human intelligence as an organism or not, they have\nacted upon the assumption that they were dealing with such organisms.\nSo they have conceived of their truth as a seed cast into the ground,\npassing through successive stages. Jesus himself spoke of the kingdom\nof God as moving out of the stage of the blade into that of the ear and\nfinally into that of the full corn in the ear. This illustration is our\nwarrant for insisting that in the enforcing of truth all manner of\nfactors come into play and that the truth passes through successive\nepochs, some of which may seem to later believers very unpromising and\nunworthy. The test of the worth of an idea is not so much any opinion\nas to the unseemliness of the stages through which it has passed as it\nis the value of the idea when once it has come to ripeness. The test of\nthe grain is its final value for food. The scriptural truths are to be\njudged by no other test than that of their worth for life.\n\nIn the light of the teaching of Jesus himself there is no reason why we\nshould shrink from stating that the revelation of biblical truth is\ninfluenced by even the moral limitations of men. Jesus said that an\nimportant revelation to man was halted at an imperfect stage because of\nthe hardness of men's hearts. The Mosaic law of divorce was looked upon\nby Jesus as inadequate. The law represented the best that could be done\nwith hardened hearts. The author of the Practice of Christianity, a\nbook published anonymously some years ago, has shown conclusively how\nthe hardness of men's hearts limits any sort of moral and spiritual\nrevelation. It will be remembered that William James in discussing the\nopenness of minds to truth divided men into the \"tough-minded\" and the\n\"tender-minded.\" James was not thinking of moral distinctions: he was\nmerely emphasizing the fact that tough-minded men require a different\norder of intellectual approach than do the tender-minded. If we put\ninto tough-mindedness the element of moral hardness and\nunresponsiveness which the prophet must meet, we can see how such an\nelement would condition and limit the prophet.\n\nAgain, Jesus said to his disciples that he had many things to say to\nthem, but that they could not bear them at the time at which he spoke.\nSome revelations must wait for moral strength on the part of the people\nto whom they are to come. Suppose, for example, in this year of our\nLord 1917, some scientist should discover a method of touching off\nexplosives from a great distance by wireless telegraphy without the\nneed of a specially prepared receiver at the end where the explosion is\ndesired. Suppose it were possible for him simply to press a button and\nblow up all the ships of the British Navy, or all the stores of\nmunitions in Germany. What would be the first duty of such an inventor?\nVery likely it would be his immediate duty to keep the secret closely\nlocked in his own mind. If such a discovery were made known to European\ncombatants in their present temper, it is a question what would be left\non earth at the end of the next twenty-four hours. With European minds\nin their present moral and spiritual plight it would not be safe to\ntrust them with any such revelation. And this illustration has\nsignificance for more than the physical order of revelation. There are\nprinciples for individual and social conduct that may well be put into\neffect one hundred years from now. Men are not now morally fit to\nreceive some revelations. All of which means that any revealing\nmovement is a progressive movement in that it depends upon not merely\nthe utterances of the revealing mind, but upon the response of the\nreceiving mind. In the play back and forth between giver and receiver\nall sorts of factors come into power. The study of the interplay of\nthese factors is entirely worthy as an object of Christian research. We\nmay well be thankful for any advance thus far made in such study and we\nmay look for greater advances in the future. For example, the historic\nstudents thus far have put in most of their effort laying stress upon\nsimilarities between the biblical conceptions and the conceptions of\nthe peoples outside the current of biblical revelation. The work has\nbeen of great value. Nevertheless it would seem to be about time for\nlarger emphasis on the differences between the biblical revelations and\nthe conceptions outside.\n\nStill when all is said the mastery of historical methods of study is\nbut preliminary to the real understanding of the Scriptures. If we come\nclose to the revealing movement itself, we find that before we get far\ninto the stream there must be sympathetic responsiveness to biblical\nteaching. The difficulties in understanding the Scriptures are, as of\nold, not so much of the intellect as they are of conscience and\nwill--the difficulties, in a word, that arise from the hardness of\nmen's hearts.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE BOOK OF LIFE\n\nThe approaches to an understanding of the Scriptures which we suggested\nin the first chapter are those which have to do merely with\nintellectual investigation. Any student with normal intelligence can\nappreciate the methods and results of the critical scrutiny of the\nbiblical documents, but will require something more for an adequate\nmastery of the scriptural revelations. There is need of sympathetic\nrealization that the Book itself did not in any large degree come out\nof the exercise of the merely intellectual faculties. In the scriptural\nrevelation we are dealing with a current of life which flowed for\ncenturies through the minds of masses of people. To be sure of insight\ninto the meanings of this revelation there must be an approach to the\nBible as a Book of Life in the sense that its teachings came out of\nlife and that they were perennially used to play back into life. Its\nhold on life to-day can be explained only by the fact that it was thus\nborn out of life, and has its chief significance for the experiences of\nactual life.\n\nEven the most superficial perusal of the Scriptures shows that they\ncame of practical contact with men and things. There is comparatively\nlittle in the entire content of our Sacred Book to suggest the\nspeculations of abstract philosophy. The writers deal with the\nconcrete. They tell of men and of peoples who had to face facts and who\nachieved comprehensions and convictions through grappling with facts.\nThere is about the Scriptures what some one has called a sort of\n\"out-of-doors-ness.\" There is very little hint of withdrawal from the\npush and pressure of daily living. If the prophets ever withdrew to\nsolitude, they did not retire to closets, but rather to deserts or to\nmountains. We must not allow our modern familiarity with bookmaking as\nan affair of library research and tranquil meditation in seclusion to\nmislead us into thinking that the Christian Bible was wrought out in\nsimilar fashion. The Book is full of the tingle and even the roar of\nthe life out of which it was born. Jesus gathered up in a single\nsentence the process by which the scriptural revelation can be\napprehended by man when he said, \"He that doeth the will shall know of\nthe truth.\" The entire scriptural unfolding is one vast commentary on\nthis utterance of Jesus.\n\nIt is impossible for us in this series of studies to attempt any\ndetailed survey of the revealing movement of which our Scriptures are\nthe outcome. It is important, however, that we should see clearly that\nthe revelation came to those who opened themselves to the light in an\nobedient spirit. While it is not in accord with our modern knowledge of\npsychology to assort and divide human activities too sharply, it is\nnevertheless permissible to insist that the biblical revelation was in\na sense primarily to the will. As Frederick W. Robertson used to say,\nobedience is the organ of spiritual knowledge. The first men to whom\nilluminations came evidently received these gifts out of some purity of\nintention and moral excellence. These early leaders gathered others\naround them and set them on the path of determined striving toward a\ndefinite goal. As the idea of the seer or the prophet found general\nacceptance it gradually hardened into law, law meant for scrupulous\nobservance. If a singer felt stirred to write a psalm, he voiced his\nexperiences or his aspirations in the midst of a throbbing world. If a\nstatesman drew a wide survey of God's dealings with the nations of the\nearth, he did so at some mighty crisis in Israel's relations to Egypt\nor Assyria or Babylon. When we reach New Testament times we find that\neven the Gospels seem to have been books struck out of immediate\npractical urgencies rather than composed tranquilly with a scholar's\ninterest merely in doing a fine piece of professional work. The early\nChristians were anxious to hold the believers to the strait and narrow\nway. To do this they repeated often the words of the Lord Jesus. When,\nhowever, the older members of the first circles began to fall away, the\nwords were written down, not because some scholar felt moved thus to\nimprove his leisure, but because it was absolutely necessary to\npreserve the words. Moreover, conflicts were arising between the\ngrowing church and the forces of the world round about. Some scriptures\nwere written to supply instruments with which to carry on the warfare.\nAlways the fundamental aim was to keep the people acting according to\nthe teachings which lay at the heart of the Christian system. The\nobject of the biblical revelation was from the beginning just what it\nis to-day in the hands of Christian believers--the object of using the\nScriptures as an instrument for practicing the Christian spirit into\nall the phases of life.\n\nWe would by no means deny that there are imposing philosophies or,\nrather, hints toward such philosophies, in the Scriptures, but we\ninsist that these did not come out of a purely philosophizing temper.\nThey came as men tried to put into some form or order the\nunderstandings at which they had arrived as they wrestled with the\ntough facts of a world which they were trying to subject to the rule of\ntheir religion. As we have said in the previous chapter, the Scriptures\nbear scars of all such conflicts. The revelation was knocked into its\nshape in the rough-and-tumble of an attempt to convert the world. And\nthis is not to claim for the Bible any difference in method of creation\nfrom that which obtains in the shaping of any vitally effective piece\nof literature. The world-shaking conceptions have always been won in\nprofound experience. This chapter is not written with the principles of\nthe modern school of pragmatism as a guide, and yet pragmatism can be\nso stated as to phrase an essentially Christian doctrine that spiritual\nideas result from spiritual practices and are of worth as they prove\nthemselves aids in further experience. Take some of the expressions of\nPaul. The fundamental fact in Paul's experience was his vision on the\nDamascus road and his determination to be obedient to that vision. To\nmake his own view of the Christian religion attractive to those whom he\nwas trying to win, it became necessary for him to speak in terms of the\nJudaism of his time. In fact, he could not have spoken in any other\nterms, though some of his reasonings seem to us to be remote from\nactual life. But when he left argument and came back to experience he\nwas most effective. His terribly compelling utterances are those which\nwere born of driving necessity. The theology started with the vision\nand unfolded in obedience to the vision, \"What wilt thou have me to\ndo?\" Everywhere upon Paul's epistles there are the marks of practical\ncompulsion. A letter was dispatched to convince stubborn Jews in\nGalatia or to persuade questioning Gentiles in Rome. Some of the\nprofoundest phrasings of Pauline belief were uttered first as appeals\nfor generous collections to starving saints.\n\nThe example of Paul as a receiver and giver of spiritual light is very\nsignificant. Even if we should make the largest allowances to the\nbiblical critics who would cut down the number of epistles known to be\ngenuinely Pauline, we would have enough left to make on our minds the\nimpression of enormous personal activity. One passage does, indeed,\ntell us of a period of months of withdrawal for reflection in Arabia.\nFor the most part, however, Paul's life was spent in ceaselessly going\nto and fro throughout the Roman empire; even in the days of\nimprisonment he seems to have been burdened with the administration of\nchurches. It was out of such multifarious activities that the theology\nof Paul was born, and therein lies its value. No interpretation is\nlikely to bring the separate deliverances into anything like formal,\nlogical consistency. Very likely Paul was of a markedly logical frame\nof mind, but he did not attempt to rid his message of contradictions in\ndetail. The unity and consistency are found in the fundamental life\npurpose to get men to accept Jesus Christ as the Chosen of God. If Paul\nhad ever heard that much of his theology might be out-dated with the\npassage of the years, he would probably have responded that he was\nperfectly willing that the instrument should be cast aside if it had\nserved its spiritual purpose of bringing men to obedience to the law of\nGod.\n\nIt is not intended to make this a book of sermons or exhortations. We\nmust say, however, that in a series of studies on how to understand the\nScriptures stress must be laid upon the maxim that the Scriptures can\nbe understood only by those who seek to recognize and obey the spirit\nof life breathing from the Scriptures. Nothing could be more hopeless\nthan to attempt to get to the heart of Christian truth without\nattempting to build that truth into life. The formal reasonings of the\ntheologian are no doubt of value, but they throw little light upon the\nessentials of Christianity except as they deal with data which have\nbeen supplied by Christian experience. It would, indeed, be well for\nany study of the Bible to begin with a recognition of the part played\nby distinctly scholarly research. We cannot go far, however, until we\nrecognize that sympathy with Christian truth is necessary before we can\ncome upon vital knowledge. And this, after all, is but the way we learn\nto understand any piece of life-literature. A vast amount of material\nis at hand in the form of commentaries upon the work of Shakespeare. We\nknow much about the circumstances under which the plays of Shakespeare\nwere written; we know somewhat of the sources from which Shakespeare\ndrew his historical materials; we are familiar with the chronology of\nthe plays; but all this is knowledge about Shakespeare. To know\nShakespeare there must be something of a deliberate attempt to\nsurrender sympathetically to the Shakespearean point of view. We get\n\"inside of\" any classic work of literature only by this spirit of\nsurrender. The aim of Shakespeare is simply to picture life as he sees\nit, but even to appreciate the picture men must enter into sympathy\nwith the painter. The Scriptures aim not merely to paint life, but to\nquicken and reproduce life. How much more, then, is needed a surrender\nof the will before there can be adequate appreciation of the\nScriptures? If the Scriptures are the results primarily of\nwill-activities, how can they finally be mastered except by minds\nquickened by doing the will revealed in the Scriptures? The book of\nChristianity must be interpreted by the disciples of Christianity.\nJudged merely by bookish standards, there is no satisfactory\nexplanation of the power of the Bible. But lift the whole problem out\nof the realm of books as such! The glimpses into any high truth that\nare worth while--how do they come? They come out of experience. Even\nwhen they are repeated from one mind to another they become the\nproperty of that second mind only as they reproduce themselves in\nexperience. Otherwise the whole transaction is of words, words, words.\nThe Scriptures have to do with deeds, not words.\n\nAll this is offensive to the dogmatic reasoner. For him the intellect\nas such is the organ of religious truth. He insists on speaking of the\nScriptures in formally theological terms. That the Scripture writers\nemployed theological terms there can be no doubt, but they did not\nspeak as systematic theologians. And always they brought their theology\nto the test of actual life. The writer of these lines once knew a\nstudent who had read enough of psychology to enable him to reason\nhimself into a belief that he was the only person in existence; that is\nto say, he declared that he himself was the only one of whose existence\nhe was infallibly certain. Does not all knowledge of an external world\ncome as a report through a sensation aroused by stimulus? If the\nappropriate stimulus could be kept up an external world might fall away\nand I would still think it was there. The bell might ring at the door\nand might be nobody there. And so on and on, through steps familiar\nenough to the student of philosophy. When a friend made a quick appeal\nto life with the question: \"If you are the only one alive, why do you\nbring your troubles to me?\" the amateur philosopher came to earth with\na sense of jar. But the jar is no greater than that when we pass from\nthe plane of dogmatic theology to that of reading the Scriptures for\ntheir own sake. The old scholastics said that in God there are three\nsubstances, one essence, and two processions. How does this sound as\ncompared with the statement of Jesus that he and his Father are one,\nand that he would send the Comforter? This is not to decry theology;\nbut is nevertheless to discriminate between theology and scripture.\n\nSome one will object, however, that the scriptural truths take their\nstart in large part from the visions of mystics--of men who brood long\nand patiently until they behold realities not otherwise discernible.\nSome students will urge upon us that such mystic revelations are\ngranted peculiarly to the mystic temperament as such, and they often\ncome regardless of the quality of life that the seers themselves may be\nliving.\n\nThere have, indeed, been in all ages of the world temperaments of\nsupernormal or abnormal responsiveness to influences which seem to make\nlittle or no impression upon the ordinary mind. In all periods natures\nof this type have been looked upon as organs of religious revelation.\nSo valuable have abnormal experiences seemed that all manner of\nexpedients have been utilized to beget unusual mental states. A certain\ntribe of Indians, for example, in the southwest of our country are\naccustomed at set times to send their religious leaders into the desert\nto find and partake of a peculiar plant which has an opiate or narcotic\neffect. In the belief of the Indians this plant opens the door to\nvisions. The visions, as reported by those who have recovered from the\ninfluence of the narcotic, are not of any considerable value. Similar\nattempts have been made by hypnotic experimenters among other peoples,\nthe hypnosis sometimes being self-induced. From some Old Testament\npassages especially we may well believe that this sort of extraordinary\nmental condition was sought for in the so-called schools of the\nprophets in the olden days of Israel. The astonishing peculiarity about\nthe Scriptures, however, is not that there is so much reliance on this\ntrance experience as that there is so little. The Hebrew Scriptures\nwere the expression of a people living in the midst of heathen\nsurroundings; and heathenism always has laid stress upon the virtue of\nthese abnormal experiences. Granting all allowances for mental states\ninduced by eating an opiate, or by whirling like the dervish, or by\nfasting like the Hindu, the fact remains that in the main, the visions\nof the writers of our Scriptures came out of attempts to realize in\nconduct the moral will of God. When we think of the surroundings even\nof the early church; when we reflect upon the force of suggestion for\nuncritical minds; when we consider the sway of superstition at all\nperiods during the Hebrew revealing movement, the wonder is that the\nScriptures lay such stress as they do upon the type of vision which\narises from faithfulness in doing the revealed will.\n\nIf we may characterize scriptural mysticism, it seems very much akin to\nmental abilities which we meet frequently in our ordinary intercourse.\nTake, for example, the prescience of a skilled business man. Nothing is\nmore inadequate than the rules for success laid down by many a man who\nhas himself succeeded in business. Mastery of his rules will not help\nanother to win business success. The reason is that there comes out of\nprolonged business practice a keen sense of what is likely to happen in\nthe industrial or financial world. The sharpened wits foresee without\nbeing able to assign reasons or grounds for the prophecies. So it is\nwith intellects trained to any superior skill. The Duke of Wellington\nonce remarked that he had spent all his life wondering what was on the\nother side of the hills in front of him, yet the Duke himself came to\nmarvelous skill in guessing what was on the other side. There is also a\nvariety of scientific mysticism, if such an expression may be\npermitted. The man long trained to the reading of scientific processes\ndevelops a quick insight which runs far ahead of reason or proof. The\ntranscendent scientific discoveries have been glimpsed or, rather,\nsensed before they so reported themselves that they could be seized by\nformal proof. Now it is a far cry from business men, generals, and\nscientists to the mysticism of the Scriptures, but when we see the\nemphasis which the Scriptures place upon constancy in keeping the law\nand in acting according to divine commandments, we cannot help feeling\nthat biblical mysticism was and is an awareness developed as the life\nbecomes practiced to the doing of religious duty. Think too of the\nemphasis placed in the Scriptures upon the consecration of the whole\nlife to the truth as cleansing the heart from evil. All this makes for\na power to seize truth beyond that possible to formal and systematic\nreason. Mysticism of this sort is the very height of spiritual power.\nThe Master's word: \"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see\nGod,\" does not refer to merely negative virtue. It means also the power\nof soul accumulated in the positive doing of good. It means entrance\ninto the life of quick spiritual awareness through the adjustment of\nthe whole nature to the single moral purpose.\n\nIn all promise of revelation the Scriptures insist upon the importance\nof keeping upon the basis of solid obedience. The finer the instrument\nis to be, the more massive must be the foundation. Professor Hocking,\nof Harvard University, has used a remarkable illustration to enforce\nthis very conception. The scientific instrument, he says, which must be\nkept freest from distracting influences so that it may make the finest\nregistries must rest upon a foundation broad and deep. So the soul that\nis to catch the finest stirrings of the divine must rest upon the\nsolidest stones of hard work for the moral purposes of the scriptural\nKingdom.\n\nStill some one will insist that the Bible is a book built around great\ncrises in human experience; that it is a record of these crises; that\nthe people in whose history the crises occurred were a peculiar people,\napparently arbitrarily chosen as a medium for religious\nworld-instruction; that the crises cast sudden bursts of intense light\nupon the meaning of human life, but that they themselves are far apart\nfrom ordinary experience. Here, again, we must insist that the\nscriptural stress is always upon obedience to what is conceived of as\nrevealed truth. We have already said that Jesus regarded revelation as\norganic. In everything organic we find instances of quick crisis\nfollowing long and slow periods of growth. The crisis or the climax of\nthe sudden flowering-out would never be possible were it not for the\nantecedent growth. The Hebrew nation, developed through workaday\nrighteousness, manifested wonderful power in sudden crises. The inner\nforces of moral purpose which at times seemed hidden or dead because of\nthe riot of wickedness suddenly blossomed forth in mighty bursts of\nprophecy; but the all-essential was the long-continued practice of\nrighteousness which made possible the sudden crisis; and this is in\nkeeping with the teachings of most commonplace human experience. The\ndaily struggle prepares for the sharp, quick strain or for the swift\nunfolding of a new moral purpose. There is nothing more arbitrary in\nthe crises in the scriptural movement than in the ordinary ongoings of\nour lives. The student who has long been wrestling with a problem finds\nthe solution instantaneously bursting upon him in the midst of untoward\ncircumstances. The most insignificant trifle may finally turn the lock\nwhich opens to the glorious revelation after prolonged brooding. The\ndaily practice may make men ready for the shock which leaps upon them\naltogether unexpected.\n\nWe summarize by saying that the essentials of biblical truth came in\nprogressive revelations to men who were putting forth their energies to\nlive up to the largest ideals they could reach; and that they sought\nthese larger ideals for use in their lives. It must be understood in\nall that we have said about acting the revelation out into life that we\ndo not mean merely the more matter-of-fact activities. It should be\nnoticed that whenever men speak of will-activities they are apt to give\nthe impression that they mean some putting forth of bodily energy. The\nwill to do scriptural righteousness did not manifest itself merely in\noutside actions. It manifested itself just as thoroughly in bearings\nand attitudes of the inner spirit; and the appeal was always to the\nwill to hold itself fast in the direction of the highest life, whatever\nthe form of the activity.\n\nAfter this emphasis upon obedience as the organ of spiritual knowledge\nsome one may ask what provision we are making for infallibility and for\ninspiration. We can only say that we are dealing with a Book which has\ncome out of concrete life, and that in concrete life not much\nconsideration is given to abstract infallibility. In daily experience\nthe righteous soul becomes increasingly sure of itself. To return for\nthe moment to Paul, we may think of the certainty with which he grasped\nthe thought of the reward which would be his. The time of his\ndeparture, or, of his unmooring, was at hand. He was perfectly\nconfident that he was to go on longer voyages of spiritual discovery\nand exploration. Can we say that this splendid outburst came from\ndevotion to an abstract formula? Did it not, rather, spring from the\nsources of life within him-sources opened and developed by the\nexperiences through which he passed? The biblical heroes wrought and\nsuffered through living confidence in the forces which were bearing\nthem on and up. They would have answered questions about abstract\ninfallibility with emphatic avowals as to the firmness of their own\nbelief. In other words, they could have relied upon their life itself\nas its own best witness to itself. They felt alive and ready to go\nwhithersoever life might lead.\n\nAnd so with inspiration. It is the merest commonplace to repeat that\nthe inspiration of the Scriptures must show itself in their power to\ninspire those who partake of their life. Does a fresh moral and\nspiritual air blow through them? Is there in them anything that men can\nbreathe? Anything upon which men can build themselves into moral\nstrength? This is the final test of inspiration. Physical breathing is\nin itself a mystery, but we know when the air invigorates us. Abstract\ndoctrine of inspiration apart from life and experience is a very\nstifling affair compared with inspiration conceived of as a breath of\nlife. The scriptural doctrine is that the man who does the will finds\nhimself able to breathe more deeply of the truth of God; and that the\nvery breath itself will satisfy him, and by satisfying him convince him\nthat it is the breath of life.\n\nThere is an old story of a student who decided to learn the meaning of\na strange religion which was taught and practiced by priests in a\nfar-away corner of India. The student thought to disguise himself, to\ngo close to the doors of the temple and to listen there for what he\nmight overhear of the principles taught by the priests. One day he was\ndetected and captured by the priests and made their slave. He was set\nto work performing to the utmost the duties for which the temple\ncalled. His response was at first rebellious. In the long years that\nfollowed the spell of the strange religion was cast upon him. He began\nto learn not as an outsider, not as one merely studying writings and\nrituals, but as one enthralled by the system itself. In this old story,\ninadequate as it is, we have a suggestion of the way in which the\nbiblical revelation lays its spell upon man. The outside study is,\nindeed, worth much, but the true understanding comes inside the temple\nto him who carries forward the work of the temple.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nTHE BOOK OF HUMANITY\n\nWe have seen that the understanding of the Scriptures presupposes at\nleast a sympathy with the rule of life contained in the Scriptures, and\nimplies for its largest results a practical surrender to that rule of\nlife. He that doeth the will revealed in the Scriptures cometh to a\nknowledge of the truth revealed in the Scriptures. We must next note\nthat an understanding of the Bible cannot advance far until it realizes\nthe emphasis on the human values set before us in the scriptural books.\nWe are to approach the distinctively religious teachings of the Bible\nsomewhat later. It is now in order to call attention to the truth that\nthe biblical movement is throughout the ages in the direction of\nincreasing regard for the distinctively human. The human ideal is not\nso much absolutely stated as imposed in laws, in prophecies, in the\npolicies of statesmen, in the types of ideal erected on high before the\nchosen people as worthy of supreme regard. And the place of the human\nideal in the Bible helps determine the place of the Bible in human\nlife. Mankind makes much of the Book because the Book makes much of\nmankind.\n\nThere is much obscurity about the beginnings of the laws of the\nHebrews. One characteristic of those laws, however, is evident from a\nvery early date--the regard for human life as such and the aim to make\nhuman existence increasingly worth while. It is a common quality of\nprimitive religions that they are apt to lay stress on merely\nceremonial cleansings, for example. The ceremony is gone through for\nthe sake of pleasing a deity. There are abundant indications of this\nsame purpose in the ceremonies of the early Hebrews, but there is even\nmore abundant indication that the ceremonies were aimed at a good\nresult for the worshiper himself. It is impossible to read through the\nMosaic requirements concerning bodily cleanliness, the sanitary\narrangements of the camps, the regulations for cooking the food, and\nthe instructions for dealing with disease without feeling that there is\na wide difference between such requirements and merely formal\nceremonials. The Mosaic sanitary law aimed at the good of the people.\nIt sought to make men clean and decent and human. So it was also in\nmany of the rules governing the daily work, the regulations as to the\nuse of land, the prohibitions of usury, the relations of servants and\nmasters--all these had back of them the driving force of an enlarging\nhuman ideal. The trend was away from everything unhuman and inhuman. It\nis not necessary for us to remark upon the outbursts of the prophets\nagainst those who would put property interests above human interests.\nIt is a matter of commonplace that the call of the prophets was for\nlarger devotion to a genuinely human ideal: that the fires of their\nwrath burned most fiercely against old-time monopolists who joined land\nto land till there was \"no place,\" and against old-time corrupters of\nthe law who sold the needy for a pair of shoes.\n\nNot only did the emphasis on the human ideal show in laws, but in the\ntraining up of types of life which should in themselves embody and\nillustrate the conceptions of the biblical leaders. At the heart of the\nChristian religion is incarnation, or divine revelation through the\nhuman organism. We are told that this incarnation came in the fullness\nof time. The passage seems to refer not merely to the rounding out of\nhistoric periods, but also to the fashioning of an ideal of human\ncharacter, and at least a partial realization of that ideal in Hebrew\nheroes. If the final ideal was to stand incarnate before men, there\nmust be approximations to that ideal before the crowning incarnation\ncould be appreciated. We look upon the character of Jesus as the\ncomplete embodiment of human excellencies. Such a revelation, however,\nwould have been futile if there had not previously been glimpses of and\nanticipations of the ideal in the lives of those who were forerunners\nof Jesus. The Scriptures teach, or at least imply, that the life of a\ngood man is in itself a transcendent value.\n\nAnd yet it is perfectly clear that while the Scriptures exalt the\nindividual, they do not mean to wall individuals off in impenetrable\ncircles by themselves. It is true that the individual is the end toward\nwhich the scriptural redemption and glorification aims, but individuals\nfind their own best selves not in isolation but in union with their\nfellows--a union of mutual cooperation and service, a union so close\nthat the persons thus related come to be looked upon as a veritable\nBody of Christ, making together by their impact upon the world the same\nsort of revelation that the living Christ made in the days of his early\nlife. The ideals as to the supremacy of human values are realized,\naccording to the Scriptures, not in any separateness of individual\nexistence, but in a closeness of social interdependence. So true is\nthis that it is hardly possible to see how one can make much of the\nscriptural movement without immersing himself in the stream of human\nlife with highest regard for the values of that life.\n\nIt has been insisted from the beginning that the Christian\nconsciousness is the only adequate interpretation of the Scriptures. By\nChristian consciousness is meant not the consciousness of the body of\nbelievers who are together trying to serve Christ. The interpretation\nof the individual becomes final only as it is accepted by the mass of\nthe believers. Something of worth-while thought is conceived of as\ngoing out from the life of every believer. The utterance of the seer is\nnot conceived of as complete until even he who sits in the seat of the\nunlearned has said \"Amen.\" The pronouncements which do not evoke this\nwide human response fall by the wayside. For example, how was the canon\nof the New Testament shaped? Was there a determination on the part of\nindividual leaders that such and such books should be included in the\nvolume of Scriptures? Very likely there was at the last such deliberate\nselection, but before the final decision there must have been the\npractice of the congregations which amounted in the end to the choice\nor rejection of sacred books. Very likely the New Testament Scriptures\nwere collected by a process of trying out the reading of Epistles and\nGospels and exhortations before the congregations. As passages met or\nfailed to meet the human needs, there was call for the repeated reading\nof some works and no call for the rereading of others. In use some\ndocuments proved their sacredness and other documents fell aside into\ndisuse. Before the concluding deliberate choice was this selection in\nuse by the believers themselves; and the selection turned round the\nquestion as to whether or not the documents helped people. If each\nmember of the body of believers is entitled to interpret biblical\nliterature, interpretation becomes a composite and diversified\nactivity. There is little warrant in the Scriptures for the notion that\nthe biblical revelation is to level men to any sort of sameness. There\nare diversities of endowments and varieties of expression; but the\nunited judgment of the body of believers is the supreme authority in\ninterpreting the scriptural revelation. This is what we mean by saying\nthat the church is to interpret the Scriptures. We mean that no matter\nhow brilliant or interesting the utterances of any individual may be,\nthey are not of great value until they have received in some fashion\nthe sanction of the main mass of believers. It is the function of the\nspokesmen of the church to gather up into distinct expression what may\nhave been vaguely, but nevertheless really, in the thought or\nhalf-thought of the people. Gladstone once said that it is the business\nof the orator to send back upon his audience in showers what comes up\nto him from the audience in mist or clouds; so it is with the voice of\na biblical truth through any medium of interpretation. The spokesman\ncompresses or condenses into speech what has been dimly in the\nconsciousness of the people. Even in days less democratic than ours\nthis was abundantly true. It is the fashion to denounce some of the\ncouncils of the old church which shaped the creeds. It is often said\nthat these creedal councils were moved by considerations of low-grade\nexpediency. The councils, however, knew what the people were thinking\nof, and managed to get the popular thought into expression measurably\nsatisfactory to the people themselves.\n\nIn this doctrine of the church as interpreter of scriptural truth we\ncan be sure that the emphasis will remain on the elements which make\nfor enlarging human life if the church keeps true to the spirit of the\nBible itself. The aspirations of humanity, the longings of masses of\nmen, find utterance in the great popular spiritual demands all the more\neffectively because such demands override and nullify the insistence of\nan individualistic point of view which might easily become selfish. We\nhave said that this democratic interpretation is final so long as it\nkeeps itself in line with the biblical purpose. There are some dangers,\nhowever, against which we must be on our guard. First is the danger of\nidentifying the church with those who actually belong to an\norganization. When we think of the church we have in mind not merely\nformal organizations, but all men who are really working in the spirit\nof the biblical ideals. There are many persons who really act according\nto the biblical revelation without technically uniting with a church.\nIt may be that such persons do not accept the intellectual puttings of\nbiblical doctrine, but that they nevertheless live in the spirit of\nthat doctrine. It might be conceivably possible that a church\norganization would stand for an interpretation of truth which would be\nrejected by the general good sense of a larger community. In such a\ncase the larger community would be the interpreter. Another danger in\nan interpreting body is that of traditionalism. The native conservatism\nof many minds stands against innovation. If, however, the innovation is\nin the direction of enlarging human life, it will in the end win its\nway. A third danger is that of institutionalism, where the organization\nas such becomes an end in itself without regard to the human interests\ninvolved. The Master's fiercest condemnations were for those who put\nany institution before the fulfillment of the human ideals. In the\nparable of the good Samaritan it is noteworthy that it was the priest\nand the Levite who passed by on the other side. It is hard to resist\nthe feeling that the Master implied that the priest and Levite had been\ninstitutionalized into a lack of humanity. Making allowance now for all\nthese dangers against which believers must guard, the chances are that\ninterpretation of a book so human as the Scriptures is not final until\nit has received the real, though not necessarily formal, sanction of\nthe body of believers.\n\nSo thoroughly does the biblical revelation turn around the supremacy of\nthe distinctively human values that we must insist that anything which\nwould run counter to these values is alien to the spirit of the\nrevelation, and, therefore, to comprehension of that revelation. We do\nnot wish to be extreme, but it is hard to see how, in our day, for\nexample, any who fail to put human rights in the first place can really\nmaster the scriptural revelation. We have spoken of the Master's\nrebukes of any form of institutionalism which stands in the way of\nhuman rights. Institutions at best are instruments; they exist merely\nfor the purpose of bringing men to larger life; but these institutions\nsometimes get petrified into custom and become glorified by long\npractice, and even made sacred by adherents who look upon them as ends\nin themselves. Then there is no recourse except to break the\ninstitutions in the name of larger human life. If we could put\nourselves back in the times of Jesus and feel something of the\nsacredness with which the Jews regarded the Sabbath, we would know the\ntremendous force of the Master's daring when he declared that the\nSabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath. The Master was\nalso insistent upon the priority of human rights as over against\nproperty rights. It is perfectly true that Jesus did not encourage any\npropaganda for social reform. It is a mistake to try to read any form\nof modern Socialism into his teaching. Socialism is the theory of a\nparticular time. Many of its outstanding features will no doubt one day\nbe adopted; and the world will then move forward toward something else.\nVery likely three centuries from the present date the well-advanced\ncommunities of the world will be living under systems which will make\nSocialism itself look like the most hopeless and reactionary\nconservatism. The scriptural revelation, however, has not to do with\nthe details of any particular scheme. It aims, rather, at the setting\non high of the human ideal, an ideal which will, if given a chance,\nwork itself out into the concrete forms best suited to each age, and\nwhich will not have exhausted its vitality when all that is good in the\nprograms of our particular day shall have been incorporated into social\npractice.\n\nBut let us linger for a moment around the blighting effect of placing\nproperty rights in front of human rights. If anyone at this juncture\nbecomes nervous and insists that we are likely to introduce the\nnew-fangled notions of the present day into a discussion where they are\nout of place, let us remind such a one that the danger of putting the\nmaterial before the spiritual has always been the chief stumbling stone\nin the path of the biblical revelation. It may be too much to say with\nthe old version that the love of money is the root of all evil, but the\nScriptures place the sin of greed in the forefront among the evils that\nblock the revealing process. Jesus said, \"It is easier for a camel to\ngo through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the\nkingdom of God.\" With God a morally miraculous redemption is entirely\npossible; but Jesus declares that there is no need of our trying to\nminimize the power of the present world to blind us to visions of the\nspiritual world. For many forms of wrongdoing the Master had a\nwillingness to make allowances; for the sin of placing material desires\nabove human welfare he had unsparing condemnation. In the day of Jesus\nthe world had an opportunity such as it never had before confronted to\nlearn spiritual truth. What manner of opposition was it which prevented\nthat truth from running its full course? Largely the opposition of\nmoney interests. The Pharisees had need to keep alliance with the\ntemporal powers. It is not without significance that Jesus was betrayed\nfor money. It is not without significance too that Jesus's picture of\nthe Judgment Scene concerns itself largely with the rewards for those\nwho discharge the tasks of simple human kindness. It means much to find\nJesus hinting at an unpardonable sin on the part of those who call\ndeeds of human relief works of Beelzebub. It is certainly food for\nreflection that the fiercest condemnations in his parables are for\nthose who miss the human duties in their regard for the possessions of\nthis world. We repeat that we would not be extreme, but when we see the\ndisregard of human life in modern industrialism; when we behold the\nattempts of property interests to get control of all channels for the\nshaping of public opinion; when we see rent, interest, and dividends\nmore highly rated than men, women, and children, we cannot help feeling\nthat the deeper penetration into the Scriptures cannot arrive except\nthrough an emphasis upon fundamental human rights so mighty that all\ninstitutional creations of industrialism or ecclesiasticism shall be\nput into the secondary place and strictly kept there. This is not\nrailing against wealth. It is simply calling attention to the fact that\nthe man who possesses the wealth-tool cannot be allowed to use it or\neven to brandish it in such fashion as to endanger the unfolding of\nhuman ideals. It is only through the enforcing of these ideals that the\nScriptures can be adequately apprehended. Until a social kingdom of God\ncomes on earth the light of revelation cannot shine in its full\nbrightness. Any social preacher of larger human rights is working for\nthe dawn of a new day of biblical understanding.\n\nSome one will ask, however, why we single out one type of evil as\nespecially thwarting the understanding of a biblical revelation. Why\nnot speak of the evils of appetite and of envy and jealousy? The answer\nis that such evils, devastating as they are toward the spiritual\nfaculties, are so definitely personalized in individuals that their\nnature is quickly recognized. The difference is that under present\norganization the evils of materialism are preeminently social. There is\neverywhere the heartiest condemnation for the man who personally is\nconspicuously greedy. A social evil can manifest itself in outstanding\nstartlingness in a single person, but the plain fact is that under\nmodern industrial organization we are all caught in the same snare. We\nare all tarred with the same stick. Great as is the improvement of our\npresent system over anything that has preceded it, nevertheless the\ndistribution of this world's goods is so unequal that we walk in the\npresence of injustice on every hand. The poor man often does not\nreceive the product of his own work. Large material prizes go to men\nwho toil not. Now no one in particular is to blame for this social\nplight. Nobody has yet arisen to show us the way out. We cannot act\nexcept as we all act together; and it is doubtful even if one nation\ncould act alone. If, however, we should all recognize the evils of the\npresent system, if we should condemn the wrongs of that system instead\nof trying to justify them, we would be on much better spiritual ground,\nfor the attempts to justify the system lead to uneasy consciences, and\nto the searing of those consciences, and to the softening down of harsh\ntruths, and finally to an inability to see things as they are. Though\nwe have come far along the path toward industrial justice, there is\nstill very much in the system under which we live that makes for an\ninability to understand some of the most elementary phrasings of\nChristian truth. The only way out is to see the system as it is and to\ntake such steps forward as can be taken now. Only thus can we keep our\nsouls saved, and only thus also can we follow the flashes from above.\n\nJesus preached the highest ideal for individual righteousness. Men are\nto strive to be perfect even as the Father in heaven is perfect. But\nthe perfection is to show itself in social impartiality in the use of\nmaterial opportunities. God sendeth the rain to fall and the sun to\nshine on the evil and the good. How many Christians of the present day\ncould be safely intrusted with the distribution of rainfall and\nsunshine? Those of us who dwell in lands that must be irrigated know\nthat the type of Christianity that can be trusted to deal fairly with\nour irrigation system is somewhat unusual.\n\nWe take the injustices of the present social order too much as a matter\nof course. We ought to see them as making against humanity, and\ntherefore against the scriptural revelation. When these injustices\nculminate in a war like the present, the only safety is thought that\ndeals honestly with the inhumanity of the war. Granted that war in\nself-defense is justifiable, we keep ourselves open to divine\nrevelations only as we refuse to glorify the inhuman. Only that nation\ncan succeed in war and remain open to revelation from above which\nrecognizes the inhumanity of war and refuses to glorify it.\n\nClosely related to the blight of the spirit of this present world is\nthe failure to perceive the need of missionary spirit for a full grasp\nof scriptural truth. Though the Bible was given to a peculiar people,\nself-centered and exclusive, it nevertheless abounds in suggestions\nthat its content can be appreciated the full only by those whose\nsympathies run out to men at the very ends of the earth. In the eyes of\nthe Scriptures a human being is a human being anywhere. The differences\nbetween men are as nothing compared to the likenesses. Every revelation\nmust begin somewhere and must attack its problems in proper sequence,\none after the other; but mere priority of approach does not mean that\none problem is inherently more important than another. Leaders among\nthe Jews early tried to impress this upon the Jewish mind. Considered\nin its historical setting, the book of Jonah is one of the most\nspiritually daring books ever written. Jonah stands as a type of Jew\nwho would not admit anything of worth in human beings outside of\nJudaism. Rather than carry the word of the Lord to Nineveh he would\nleave his country and go to Tarshish; rather than turn back and resume\nthe journey to Nineveh, he would consent to be cast overboard in a\nstorm. Forced at last to deliver his message, he announced it with the\ngrim satisfaction of expecting to see Nineveh destroyed. And the final\ntext of the book is that Jonah must learn not merely to proclaim his\nmessage to the Ninevites, but to proclaim his message with sympathy and\ngenuine human interest. The Jews were a long time learning the lesson,\nbut not longer than other peoples have been. Just because of the human\ninterest involved, the missionary impulse is necessary to a spiritual\nseizure of the biblical revelation.\n\nIt is important that we keep the missionary motive on the right basis.\nIt is true that the Scriptures will never be adequately appropriated\nuntil all kindreds and peoples and tongues bring their contributions.\nSome phases of the truth the Oriental mind must seize before the\nOccidental mind can be brought to appreciate them. When the final\nrevelation comes it will be adapted to the understanding of any kindred\nunder heaven. It is worth while to spread the Christian revelation for\nthe sake of the return which the Christianized peoples will one day\nbring to our studies of the truth. But the better motive is deeper than\nthis--the passion for human beings as human beings. Any human being is\nentitled to any truth which another human being can reveal to him.\n\nThe approach must be the human approach. We must speedily get away from\nthe Jonah-like conceptions of the biblical revelation as intended\nparticularly for any one nation. One great danger from the present war\nis the loss by the religious nations involved of the ordinary New\nTestament point of view. Many of the fighting nations have lapsed back\ninto the pre-Jonah era. But the present war aside, the thought of\nsupreme truth as intended chiefly for a particular race or nation,\nleads to a patronizing, condescending bearing toward other peoples\nwhich thwarts the finer spiritual achievements. The contacts between\nthe so-called higher and so-called lower nations in military,\ndiplomatic, and commercial relations have thus far for the most part\nbeen abominable. Too often missionary effort itself has based itself on\nthese same assumptions of racial superiority. A people may indeed\nreceive blessings from the Scriptures in whatever spirit they are\nbestowed, but damage is wrought in the souls of the bestowers by the\nattitude of superiority. The only genuinely biblical approach is one of\nrespect--respect for the peoples as peoples, respect which will have\nregard for their growing independence in spiritual development, respect\nwhich will not force upon them particularistic interpretations of the\nuniversal Scriptures.\n\nNow, all of this may seem like a long distance from a treatment of\nunderstanding of the Scriptures in the ordinary sense. It would not\nhave been worth while, however, to discuss this problem merely from the\npoint of view of exegesis or professional commentary. The essentials\nabout the Scriptures are their relations to life, their views of human\nbeings and teachings concerning the forces of the spiritual kingdom. We\nshall proceed in the other chapters to speak of God, of the revelation\nof God in Christ, and of the spirit of Christ as revealed in his cross.\nBefore we enter upon that study we must again remind ourselves that\nonly life in harmony with the point of view of the Scriptures and only\nan interest in the same human problems that engross the attention of\nspiritual writers can avail us for vital interpretation of the\nteachings concerning the Divine, or make intelligible to us the hold of\nthe Scriptures on the life of the world. The Bible is conceived in a\nspirit of respect for men. Only those who enter into that same spirit\ncan hope to make much of the biblical revelation.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nTHE BOOK OF GOD\n\nWe have remarked upon some points of view from which the student must\nstart in order to reach a sound understanding of the Scriptures. It is\ntime for us to ask ourselves, however, as to the dominant notes of the\nScriptures which make the Book so dynamic. The purpose of this chapter\nis to show that the essentials of the Book are, after all, its\nteachings about God. The Bible is the Book of God. Due chiefly to the\nideas about God are its uniqueness and its force.\n\nBefore advancing to the consideration of the Bible as a book about God\nit will be well for us to glance for a moment at other grounds on which\nsupremacy for the Scriptures is sometimes claimed. There are those who\nmaintain that the value of the Bible lies in the wealth of information\nwhich it gives us concerning the first days of the world's life. The\nBible helps us to regard sympathetically the view of the universe by\nthe ancient Hebrews. It is a repository of knowledge as to early\nscience and philosophy. Now, all this is true, but relatively\nunimportant. Had it not been for the religious teachings of which the\nold-time view of the world was the vehicle, that vehicle itself would\nlong since have been forgotten. Only archaeologists are to-day greatly\ninterested in ancient theories of the world as such.\n\nThere are, again, those who avow that the Bible deserves all praise\nbecause of the literary excellence of its style. There are, indeed,\nsublime passages to be forever cherished as entitled by their very\nsublimity of expression to permanent place in the world's literature.\nAll this we most gladly admit. Oratory like that of the book of Isaiah,\nsome of the sentences of the patriarchs, passages from the Psalms or\nfrom the Sermon on the Mount, the parables, the thirteenth chapter of\nPaul's First Epistle to the Corinthians, are sure of permanency in\nliterature no matter what may be anyone's opinion of their religious\ncontent. Nobility of conception is very apt to tend toward nobility of\nphrase. The expression may be admired for its own apart from the\nsubstance; but to say that the Bible holds its throne as the Book of\nbooks simply because of the superiority of its artistic form is\nwoefully aside from the mark. Lamentable as it may be, masses of men do\nnot rank artistic literary skill as highly as they ought. While a lofty\nidea is not likely to make its full impression until wrought into lofty\nbeauty by a master of style, the worth must nevertheless inhere in the\nsubstance rather than in the form if the statement is to make lasting\neffect upon the passing generations. Moreover, it is very easy to\noveremphasize the literary excellence of the Scriptures. There are\nscores of passages which, as we say, \"go through one,\" but this\nmarvelous effectiveness is quite as likely to belodged in the idea\nitself and in the associations which that idea arouses as in the form\nof the passage. In some instances the literary mold in the Authorized\nVersion is such as to hinder rather than to help; so that the prophet\nwho seeks to add to the force of the idea breaks the mold for literary\nrecasting.\n\nStill another may declare that the Scriptures are valuable because they\nabound in hints which make for practical success--shrewd moral maxims\nwhich aid all classes of men in avoiding pitfalls, axioms for daily\nconduct which ought to be accepted by everybody, even by those who care\nnot for the religion of the Bible. All this, again, is true, but hardly\nsufficient to explain the grip of the Bible on mankind. So far as the\nmore conventional morality goes, men are likely to be ruled by the\nsentiment of the community in which they move. They adapt themselves to\nthe demands of the situation at a particular time rather than to a set\nof precepts.\n\nStill others maintain that the human ideal itself which we sketched in\na previous chapter is the determining factor in giving the Bible power.\nThe greatest study of mankind is man. The erection of such an ideal as\nthat of the Scriptures for man cannot fail to secure for the Book\nmighty power through all the ages. And yet it must be replied that if\nwe take the Bible merely as portraying a human ideal without reference\nto the idea of God involved in the same process of revelation, we cut\nasunder two things which properly belong together. We must not forget\nthat in the history of Israel the prophets grasped at every new insight\nconcerning human character as at the same time a new insight concerning\nthe character of God. Attributing a profoundly moral trait to God made\nit of more consequence forthwith for man, and thus the conceptions of\nman and God went along together reenforcing each the other. To separate\nthe ideal of God from the ideal of man leaves everything at loose ends\nfor the human ideal. It is true that there are individuals here and\nthere of intense intelligence and of immense wealth of moral endowment\nwho do not seem to require any ideal of God to sustain and strengthen\ntheir ideal of man; but for the most of us the ideal of man cannot grow\nto any considerable size without growth of our notion as to the\ncharacter of God. What man is now depends somewhat on our thought of\nwhere man came from, and what his place in the universe essentially is.\nOne of our deepest yearnings is to know whether our exalted belief\nabout man has any validity before the larger ranges of the activity of\nthe universe itself. It is very common, for example, for those who go\nforth to social tasks with a passion for humanity to lose that passion\nif they do not keep alive a passion for God. Disappointment with some\nphases of human nature itself and despair over the failures of men are\napt to be so trying that the passion for humanity dies down unless\nfamiliarity with actual human life is reenforced by communion with an\nideal which reaches up toward the Divine. We would ourselves insist\nthat the loftiest human ideal in all literature is that of the\nScriptures, but we must insist also that this ideal lacks driving force\nif it does not keep back of it the biblical doctrine of God.\n\nFrom the very outset the Hebrew Scriptures deal with God. \"In the\nbeginning God,\" at the end God, and God at every step of the journey\nfrom the beginning to the end. There are other scriptures besides the\nHebrew Scriptures that deal with God, but the kind of God set before us\nin the Hebrew revelation gives the Bible its supreme merit.\n\nSince we often hear that there are other sources for the idea of God\nthan the Scriptures, it may be well for us to appraise the\ncontributions from some of those sources before we look at the kind of\nGod drawn for us in the biblical writings. After allowing as high\nexcellence as is possible to the theologies obtained outside the\nScriptures, the moral and spiritual superiority of the scriptural ideal\nshines forth unmistakably.\n\nMany a scientist tells us that we do not further need the biblical idea\nof God in view of the vast suggestions concerning the Divine which\nscience places before us. The world in which we live has broadened\nimmeasurably since the days of the Hebrew prophets and seers. The idea\nof God, broadening to correspond, has to expand so overwhelmingly that\nwe ought no longer pay heed to the imaginations of the biblical\nwriters. Large numbers of scientists to-day avow themselves devout\ntheists. Materialism is decidedly out of fashion, and agnosticism is\nless in vogue than a decade or two ago. The reverent scientist affirms\nthat he believes in a God whose omniscience keeps track of every\nparticle of matter in a universe whose spaces are measured by billions\nof miles, a God whose omnipresence implies the interlacing of forces\nwhose sweep and fineness seen through the telescope and microscope\nastonish us. Moreover, the modern doctrine of evolution shows us that\nthe entire material system is moving on and up from lower to higher\nforms. \"It doth not yet appear what we shall be,\" but we shall clearly\nbe something great and glorious.\n\nNow, far be it from us to belittle the splendor of this scientific\nvision. Modern scientific searchers are, indeed, finding innumerable\nillustrations of the greatness of God. There is every reason why the\nscientific investigator should rejoice in a calling which enables him\nto think God's thoughts after him; but when a scientist will have it\nthat his belief in God arises only from his technical investigations,\nwe must declare our suspicion that he is employing his findings to\nconfirm a faith already held, though that faith may be part of his\nunconscious spiritual possessions. Many times the scientist is\ndetermined that the scientific discoveries shall look in theistic\ndirections just to satisfy the imperious though unconscious demands of\nhis own soul. Some scientists are theists just because they are bound\nto be so, for the close contemplation of the entire situation in the\nmaterial realm does not make for any adequate theistic verdict. It is\nhard indeed to believe that the nice adjustments of matter and force\noccur without the governance of a supervising intelligence. There are\ntoo many facts which suggest skill to make it easy to believe that the\nnatural world is just the outcome of a fortuitous concourse of atoms.\nScience itself very likely establishes a presumption in favor of a\ngoverning mind, _but the deeper question is as to the character of that\nmind_. Is it a moral mind? At this point the hopeful evolutionist will\nbreak out that the progress is so definitely from lower to higher that\nno one ought to doubt the benevolence of the Power moving upward\nthrough all things. Evolution is, indeed, full of promises to one who\nalready trusts in the goodness of God; but the progress from lower to\nhigher is not always unmistakable. Often the survival of the fittest is\njust a survival of those fittest to survive, and not the survival of\nthose who ought to survive. There are too many things which survive\nwhich ought to be killed off. Simple good can give way to complex evil\nwithout at all violating the requirements of the evolutionistic\nformula. But even if we concede all that the scientist claims for his\nconception of God; if we grant that terms like \"omnipresence\" and\n\"omniscience\" and \"progress\" clothe themselves with new force in the\nCopernican and Newtonian and Darwinian terminology, we must\nnevertheless insist that none of this rises to the moral height of the\nbiblical teaching. Nor are we willing to admit that the biblical\ndoctrine is to be discounted because it grew up amid small theories of\nthe material universe. The old Hebrew views of the physical system,\noutdated as they are now, are nevertheless full of sublimity on their\nown account. But even if they were infinitesimal as compared with the\nvast stretches of modern scientific measurements, the moral grandeur of\nthe idea of God of which they were the framework stands forth\nunmistakably. We must not permit the quantitative bigness of modern\nscientific notions to obscure the qualitative fineness of the biblical\nideal of God. Modern philosophy comes also and announces that it has a\nbetter God than that of the Scriptures. The most imposing modern\nphilosophical systems are those which proclaim some form of idealism.\nThe gist of the idealistic argument always is that the world itself is\nnothing apart from thought; that thought-relationships rule in and\nthrough all things; that there are no things-in-themselves; that there\ncan be no hard-and-fast stuff standing apart from God. Things must come\nwithin the range of thought or go out of existence. There is no\nalternative. Now, thought implies a thinker, and this implication\ncarries us at once to God. Here, again, we have no desire to question\nthe cogency of the argument. We are ready to admit that this is the\nstrongest theistic argument that has thus far been built. To be sure,\nthere are some questions that inevitably suggest themselves: What is\nthe thinker? Is it impersonal thought, as some have maintained? Is it\njust the sum of all forms of consciousness--our consciousnesses being\norgans or phases of the Supreme Consciousness? Or is the thinker\nstrictly personal, carrying on a thought-world by the power of his will\nand calling into existence finite thinkers in his own image? Assuming\nthat the world is the expression of the thought of a Personal Thinker\nwho acts in the forces of nature and creates men in his own image, the\nfurther question arises as to the character of that Thinker. While\nreturning the heartiest thanks to the idealist for his argument--full\nas it is of aid for the Christian system--we have to protest that the\nargument does not lift us to the full height of the ideal of God\ninculcated in the Scriptures. And if this is true of the majestic\nsystems of idealism, how much more is it true of the other and less\nconvincing systems which are just now having their day! We have already\nspoken of pragmatism as possessing validity as a method, but pragmatism\ncan hardly cherish pretension of being itself a system of religious\nphilosophy.\n\nSome very strenuous searchers after divine treasures have professed to\ndiscover value in various non-Christian religions. They have patiently\nstudied the great Indian world-views, for example, which are admittedly\nthe most important religious creations outside of Christianity. These\nstudents come back to us with fragments of doctrines, gems of ethical\nwisdom, traces of sublimity from the Indian sacred books. It would be\nfoolhardy not to receive any genuine treasures, no matter what the mine\nfrom which they have been quarried. We are all eager to admit the\nimmeasurable possibilities of the Oriental type of thinking for the\ndevelopment of Christianity, but Oriental systems thus far have been\nchiefly significant as indicating what stupendous religious powers can\ndo when they are off the track. The Indian systems of religion have run\nloose in India. As a result, nowhere in the world has religion been\ntaken more seriously and more sincerely than by the Indian peoples. It\nis simply impossible to bring the charge against the Indian races that\nthey have not made the most of their religion. The final indictment to\nbe passed upon the Indian systems is that while the Indian peoples have\nmade the most of those systems, the systems have made least of the\nIndian peoples; and this because of the defects in the conception of\nthe Divine itself. It is doubtful whether the Indian could call his\nhighest gods personal. If he declares them personal, he can hardly make\nthem moral in the full sense; that is to say, in the sense of exerting\ntheir force on the world in favor of justice and righteousness and love.\n\nNow, it is just in the quality of moral force that the God of the\nScriptures shows his superiority. The entire revealing process can be\nlooked upon as one long story of the moralization of the idea of God.\nLet it be granted that the biblical idea was at the beginning marked by\nthe na\u00efve and the crude. Personally, we have never been able to see the\npertinency of the reasonings which make the Hebrew Jehovah as imperfect\nas some students would have us believe. Nevertheless, for the sake of\nthe argument we will admit limitations in the early Hebrew conception\nof God. Even with such concession, however, the outstanding\ncharacteristics of that God were from the beginning moral. Suppose that\nJehovah was at the beginning just a tribal Deity. The difference\nbetween Jehovah and other tribal deities was that the commandments\nwhich were conceived of as coming from him looked in the direction of\nincreasing moral life for the people, and these moral demands upon the\nchosen people were conceived of as arising out of the nature of Jehovah\nhimself. To be sure, the early narratives employ expressions like \"the\njealousy of God,\" but even a slightly sympathetic reading of the\nScriptures indicates that the jealousy was directed against whatever\nwould harm human life. In the mighty pictures of the patriarchs the\nheroes speak to their God as if the same moral obligations rested upon\nGod as upon themselves. There is nothing finer in the Old Testament\nthan Abraham's challenge, \"Shall not the Judge of all the earth do\nright?\"\n\nWe are not specially interested in the growth of the ideas as to the\npower of God, though we repeat that it is difficult for us to believe\nthat the early Hebrews thought of their Deity as so narrowly limited in\npower as some modern students seek to prove. The conception of the\nmight of Jehovah grew through the centuries and followed upon the\nextension of the knowledge of the Hebrews about the world in which they\nlived. If tomorrow morning some revolutionary astronomical discovery\nshould convince us that the solar system is much vaster than we have\never imagined, the theist would, of course, extend the thought of the\nsway of God to all that solar system. If there were some method of\nbecoming aware that the bodies of the entire astronomical system are\nmillions of times more numerous than scientists ever have dreamed, the\ntheist would, of course, maintain that the righteous purpose of his God\nreaches to all of these bodies. The growth of the Hebrew idea was\nsomewhat parallel to this. Even when the Hebrew thought of the outside\npeoples as having gods of their own; he believed that as soon as his\nGod came into conflict with the other gods, he would shatter them with\nhis might. By the time the first chapters of Genesis were written the\nHebrew conceived of God as creator of all things, and thereafter the\ngrowth of the belief in the power of God kept pace with the enlarging\nview of the world.\n\nWe repeat that we are not much concerned with the growth of the idea of\nthe power of God. We are, however, interested in the manifest teaching\nor direct implication of the Scriptures that from the beginning the\nHebrews thought of God as under obligation to use his power for moral\nends. What the moral ends were depended upon the growth of the moral\nideal. At the very beginning it was believed that since God had chosen\nthe people of Israel to be his people, he must fight their battles for\nthem. It is from this point of view that we must deal with the early\nidea of God as a God of battles. God was wielding his force for a moral\npurpose. Moreover, if God had chosen a people to be the channel through\nwhich he was to reveal himself to the world, he must be very patient\nwith that people. How sublime is the Old Testament belief in the\npatience of God toward Israel! To use the phrase of our later days, God\naccommodated himself to the progress which the people could make. When\nthe prophets called upon the people to walk with God, they implied a\nwillingness on God's part to walk with the people. If they must\nlengthen their stride, he must shorten his; he must bear with them in\ntheir inadequate notions; he must judge their efforts by the direction\nin which they were tending rather than by any achievement in itself.\n\nIt is from the point of view of their growing apprehension of God as\nmoral that we can best understand the ferocity of the Israelite toward\nthe so-called heathen peoples. The boasting of the Israelites over the\nslaughter of outsiders must be understood from the faith in the moral\ndestiny which the prophets conceived the God of Israel to hold in store\nfor his people. The reason assigned for cruelties and warfares upon\nheathen peoples was the abominations practiced by those peoples. Of\ncourse it is possible for a student obsessed with the modern doctrine\nof the economic determinism of history to say that we have in the story\nof the Hebrew development just the play of economic forces with moral\naims assigned as their formal justification. Assuming that the\nnarratives of the conquest of Canaan are true, what the Hebrews\ndesired--these economists tell us--was the milk and the honey. They\nmade their so-called advance in obedience to God an excuse for taking\npossession of the milk and the honey. Now, he would be blind indeed who\nwould deny that economic values do play their part in wars of conquest;\nhe would be foolish who would deny that wars always do justify\nthemselves by appealing to lofty religious motives, but nevertheless\nthe impact of the Hebrew history upon the life of the world has been a\nmoral impact, due to the belief of the Hebrews that they were\ninstruments in the hands of a moral God. If we could behold the\nabominations in heathenism upon which the old prophets looked, we would\nsympathize quite readily with an impulse which might seem to call for\noutright destruction. A friend of mine, a man of the most sensitive\nChristian feeling, once stood on the banks of the Ganges and watched\npeople by the hundreds and thousands going through religious\nceremonials, some of which were defiling and others silly. In the midst\nof the reeking vileness of one scene in particular he said that he felt\nfor the moment an impulse like that of the old prophets to cry out for\nthe destruction of the entire mass. The situation seemed so dreadful\nand so hopeless! All this passed in an instant to the loftier feeling\nof compassion, but the stirring of the more primitive impulse was\nreally moral in its foundation. In any case, the old Hebrew notion was\nof a God who would put a growing moral ideal in the first place.\n\nIt is not necessary for us to attempt to trace the steps of the growth\nof the moral ideal for God. As we have said, that ideal kept pace with\nthe growth of the ideal for man. We must call attention, however, to\nthe fact that the growth of the ideal was in the direction of\nincreasing emphasis upon the responsibilities that go with power. The\nHebrew may not have definitely phrased the responsibility, but he\nnevertheless shows his increasing realization of the obligations\nresting upon God. When we reach the later prophets we discern that his\nmoral obligation upon God himself becomes more and more a determining\nfactor. There appear glimpses of belief that God must not only fight\nfor his people, but that he must suffer in their sufferings. It is of\nlittle consequence for our present purpose whether the suffering\nservant of Jehovah of the later Israelitish Scriptures is a group of\npersons or an individual. The implication is that the suffering is a\nrevelation of Jehovah himself. Moreover, there appears a widening\nstream of emphasis on the tenderness of God's care for his people. The\nHebrew writers comparatively early broke away from the thought of God\nas merely philanthropically inclined toward Israel. They did not think\nof him as bestowing gifts which were without cost to himself. They show\nhim as deeply involved in the life of the nation and as caring for his\npeople with an infinite compassion. This enlarging revelation was made\nclear to the people through the utterances of prophets, the decrees of\nlawgivers, the songs of psalmists, the interpretations of historians,\nand the warnings of statesmen. Slowly and surely, moreover, the people\nattained grasp on the doctrine that the greatest revelation of God is\nthe revelation in human character itself. They began to look forward to\nthe coming of one who would in himself embody the noblest and best in\nthe divine life, who would gather up in himself all the ideals and\npurposes toward which the law and the prophets had looked. New\nTestament revelation as such we leave to the later chapters, but we\nhave come far enough, we think, to warrant us in saying that only he\ncan understand the Scriptures who sees that the chief fact about the\nScriptures is the emphasis on the moral nature of God. Other Scriptures\nbesides that of the Hebrews--we might say scientific, philosophical,\nextra-Christian Scriptures--have stood for the existence of God; but\nnone have stood for the existence of such a God as the God of the\nBible. The salient feature of the Bible is its thought of God.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTHE BOOK OF CHRIST\n\nIt is of course the merest commonplace to say that the revelation of\nGod in the Scriptures comes to its climax in Christ. The revelation in\nChrist gathers up all that is loftiest in the utterances of the Old\nTestament and gives it embodiment in a human life. It is legitimate to\ndeclare that there is little either in the teaching of Christ or in his\ncharacter that is not at least foreshadowed in the Old Testament. The\nuniqueness of the Christ revelation consists in the manner in which the\nseparate streams of truth of the law and the prophets and the seers and\nthe poets are merged together in the Christ teaching, and in the fine\nbalance with which the ideal characteristics seen from afar by the\nsaints of the older day were realized in the living Christ. We might\njustly say that a devout reader of the Old Testament could find rich\nelements of the Christ revelation even if he should never see a page of\nthe New Testament. The virtue of the New Testament, however, is that\nall the elements revealed throughout the course of the historic periods\nof Israel's career are bound together in the life and character of\nChrist. It is no mere epigram to say that if the greatest fact about\nthe Scriptures is God, the greatest fact about God is Christ. Any\nthorough study of the Scriptures must revolve around Christ as its\ncenter. If the Scriptures mean anything, they mean that in Christ we\nsee God. Of course it is open to the skeptic to reply that in all this\nthe Scriptures are completely mistaken; but he cannot maintain that\nthis is not what the Scriptures mean. The Book comes to its climax with\nan honest conviction that Christ is the consummate revelation of God.\nThe day when men could charge any sort of manipulation of the material\nby Scripture writers for unworthy doctrinal purposes is past. We have\nin another connection said that each of the New Testament books was,\nindeed, written with a definite aim, but this does not mean that facts\nand teachings were twisted out of their legitimate significance. That\nChrist is the supreme gift of God to men is so thoroughly built into\nthe biblical revelation that there is no digging that idea out without\nwrecking the entire revelation itself. To maintain anything else would\nbe to do violence to the entire scriptural teaching. The burden of the\nentire New Testament is that God is like Christ.\n\nThis may seem to some to be a reversal of present-day approach to the\nstudy of the Christ. We may appear to be attacking the problem from the\ndivine angle rather than from the human. Why not ask what Christ was\nrather than what God is? It is indeed far from our purpose to minimize\nthe rich significance of the humanity of Jesus, but we are trying now\nto get the scriptural focus. We do not believe that we can secure that\nfocus by looking upon the character of Christ as a merely human ideal.\nThe might of the scriptural emphasis is that Christ is the revelation\nof God. We are well aware that ordinary theological debate has centered\non the question as to the extent to which Christ is like God. The Bible\nis colored with the belief that God is like Christ. This may seem at\nfirst glimpse to be a very fine discrimination, but the importance of\nthat discrimination appears when we reflect that mankind is more eager\nto learn the character of God than to learn how far a man can climb\ntoward divinity. In all such discussions as this we proceed at peril of\nbeing misunderstood, but we must repeatedly affirm that important as is\nthe problem as to the human ideal set forth in Christ, the divine ideal\nset forth in him is more significant as explaining the hold of the\nBible on men. Is it not sufficient for us to behold a lofty human ideal\nin the portrait of Christ without such emphasis on this ideal as also a\nrevelation of the divine character? The answer depends upon what we are\nmost interested in. If we care most for a perfect and symmetrical human\nlife, we reply that we find that perfection and symmetry in Christ. In\nour second chapter we laid such stress upon the importance of the\nenlarging human ideal that we have committed ourselves to the\nimportance of the Christ ideal as a revelation of the possibilities of\nhuman life. But if we take that ideal in itself without any reference\nto the character of God, how much enlargement does it bring us? As\nmembers of the human race we can indeed be proud that a human being has\nclimbed to such moral stature as did Jesus, but what promise does that\ngive that any other human being can attain to his stature? As a member\nof the human race I can be profoundly thankful for a philosopher like\nKant. I can, indeed, dedicate myself to the study of the Kantian\nphilosophy with some hope of mastering it. I can seek to reproduce in\nmy life all the conditions that surrounded the life of the great\nmetaphysician, but I cannot hope to make myself a Kant. Strive as I\nmay, such transformation is out of the question. I may attain great\nmerit by my struggle, but I cannot make myself a Kant. The more\nintensely I might struggle, the more convinced I would become of the\nfutility of my quest, and the genius of the philosopher might tower up\nat the end as itself a grim mockery of my ambition. So it is with the\nChrist if he is not a revelation of the God life at the same time that\nhe is an idealization of the human life. Viewed as a revelation of\nGod's character the Christ life is the hope of all the ages. Viewed\nonly as a masterpiece of human life it might well be the despair of\nmankind.\n\nOf course there are those who believe that it is impossible for Christ\nto be a revelation of the human without also being a revelation of the\nDivine. We have no desire to quarrel with this position, though we find\nit more optimistic than convincing. Incredible as it may seem at first\nthought, the universe might theoretically be regarded as a system ruled\nover by a Deity who had brought forth a character like that of Christ\njust for the sake of seeing what he could achieve in the way of a\nmasterpiece, without being himself fundamentally involved in\nself-revelation. Christ might conceivably be a sort of poetic dream of\nthe Almighty rather than a laying bare of the Almighty's own life. We\nfind that human authors by an effort of great imagination fashion\ncreations in a sense completely different from themselves. It might be\ntheoretically urged that the character of Christ is different from the\ncharacter of God. If this seems very far-fetched, let us remind\nourselves then that there are those in the present world who conceive\nof Christ as the very highest peak of human existence and yet deny that\nhe has any sort of significance as a revelation of the forces back of\nthe world. Such thinkers maintain that Christ is the best the race has\nto show, and yet affirm that the race is but an insignificant item in\nthe total massiveness of the universe. The Bible establishes the faith\nof men against skepticism like this by making the Christ-ideal for God\nhimself so attractive and appealing.\n\nThere are those who proclaim that we do not need any revelations of God\nto make then human ideal fully significant--the human ideal stands by\nitself. Some such thinkers go consistently the full length of saying\nthat they are willing to keep their eyes open to the hopelessness of\nthe universe. They can see nothing beyond this life but total oblivion.\nNevertheless, with their eyes open they will fight on manfully to the\nend and take the final leap into the dark without flinching. They are\nvery apt to add that their philosophy is the only unselfish one; that\nthe desire of men for any sort of help from conceptions about the\nDivine is selfishness where it is not sentimentalism. It is fair to say\nthat such doctrines seldom meet large response. The reason is not that\nmen selfishly seek out a God for the sake of material reward that may\ncome to them, but that they seek him for the sake of finding a resting\nplace for their minds and souls, for the sake of cherishing an end\nwhich seems in itself worth while, for the sake of laying hold on a\nuniverse in which they can feel at home. If this is selfishness, then\nthe activities of the human soul in its highest ranges are selfish. If\nit is selfish to long for a universe in which the heart can trust, it\nis selfish also to enjoy the self-satisfaction with which some of these\nthinkers profess to be ready to take their leap into the night. As we\nscan the history of Christianity since the day of the Founder we are\nimpressed that religious organizations as such which arise within\nChristianity tend to survive in proportion as they make central the\nsignificance of Christ as the revealer of the character of God. We\nwould not for a moment underestimate the importance of those groups of\nChristians who take Christ merely as a prophet who lived the noblest\nlife and exalted his truth by the noblest death. Many such believers\nmanifest the very purest devotion to Christ. They are his disciples.\nBut the historic fact is that organizations founded on such doctrines\nalone do not win sweeping triumphs. On their own statement the most\nthey hope to do is to spread the leaven of their doctrine into the\nthinking of other groups of Christians. Their service in this respect\nis not to be disparaged, for at all times the more orthodox opinion of\nChrist, so called, needs the leavening of emphasis on the humanity of\nChrist. But after all these allowances it is just to affirm that\ntheology which sees only the human in Christ does not come to vast\npower, and that clearly because the world is chiefly interested in the\nquestion with which the entire biblical revealing movement deals,\nnamely, what is the nature of God? With that question answered we can\nbest understand the nature of man and the possibility of communion\nbetween man and God.\n\nWe may be permitted to pick up the thread of the argument in the last\nchapter and ask again what moral purposes rule the forces of this\nworld. It must indeed be an odd type of mind that does not at least\noccasionally ask what this world is for, and what all this cosmic\ncommotion is about. It is well for all of us to do the best we can\nwithout asking too many hard questions, but the queries will at times\ncome up and with the normal human being they are not likely easily to\ndown. We are in the midst of powers which defy our intellects. We do\nnot go far in the attempt to read the secrets of nature around us\nwithout discovering that all we can hope to spell out is the stages by\nwhich things come to pass, and the mechanisms by which they fit\nthemselves together. Why they come to pass is beyond us, except in a\nmost limited sense. The purposes for which events occur in this world\nare not self-evidently clear. Explanations of purposes only make\nmatters worse; and at any moment this problem of the mystery of the\nuniverse may take personal significance in the form of a blow upon the\nindividual which seems to mock all hope of anything worth while in\nhuman life. There is nothing more futile than the attempts even of\nministers to divine the meanings of afflictions or of those\ninequalities of lot which attend the natural order. The preachers can\nencourage us to make the most of a bad lot, but their guesses as to why\nthese things are ordinarily add to our burdens. No, the mind of itself\njust by contemplation of the things as they are cannot find much light.\nThis enigma has always been before the philosophers in the form of the\nquestion as to physical suffering. A number of plausible answers have\nbeen made as to the reasons for pain in the present order. Leibnitz\nsaid that even the Almighty creating the finite world had to adjust\nhimself to some limitations for the good of the whole; that if some\nforces are to run in one direction, there must be mutual concession and\ncompromise in the adjustment of manifold other activities; and that all\nthis involves at least apparent stress and injustice at particular\npoints. This sounds well enough, but why the afflictions of the\nindividual who happens to be one of the particular points should be\njust what they are is a mystery. The upshot is that the ordinary\nman--the plain man, as we call him--must either give up the whole\nproblem by seeking to forget it, or must rebel against it, or he must\nfind relief in a God whom he can trust without being able to fathom his\nplans.\n\nThe tragedy of physical affliction is light as compared to the\ntragedies which arise in any conscience which seeks to take moral\nduties seriously. To be sure, we live at present in a rather complacent\nage so far as the struggles of conscience are concerned. The advice of\nthe world is to do the best we can and let the rest go. We are not to\ntake ourselves too seriously. But the long moral advances of the race\nhave come through those who have taken the voices of conscience\nseriously. Now, what can a sensitive conscience make of moral duty?\nAssume that we have before us the exalted Christ ideal, and accept this\nas the guide of our lives--assume that we even have hope of some day\nattaining to that ideal--the distracting question is bound to jump at\nus: Are we doing enough? Have we sacrificed enough for those in worse\nplight than ourselves? And what about our past mistakes? Shall we go\nback and try to undo these? At the very best that might be like\nunraveling through the night what we have spun through the day. It will\nnot do to dismiss this as unhealthiness or morbidness of mind. William\nJames has shown pretty conclusively that the so-called normal or\nhealthy-minded moral life is apt to be shallow. The great moral tragedy\nof the race is the distance between the ideal and any possible\nattainment. We can console ourselves by saying that noble discontent is\nthe glory of man; but that does not get us far. There is only one way\nout, and that is to trust that we are dealing with a Christlike God,\nthat his attitude toward us is the attitude of Jesus toward men. It is\nimpossible to feel that in discipleship with Jesus men were complacent\nabout their own moral perfections on the one hand, or harassed with\nself-reproaches on the other. They were advancing toward the\nrealization of an ideal in companionship with One who not only in\nhimself realized the human ideal, but who taught them that all the\nforces of the world would work together with them in their climb toward\nperfection, and that God would be patient with their blunders.\n\nThe question as to the character of God becomes more vital the longer\nwe reflect. The growing conscience of our time demands that two\nconceptions be kept together--that of power and that of moral\nresponsibility. We cannot hold a person responsible unless he has\npower; we cannot give a person power unless he is willing to act under\nresponsibility. This realization is fast modifying all our relations to\npolitics, to finance, to industry, even to private duties. We are\nswiftly moving toward the day when society will insist that any measure\nof power which has an outreach beyond the circle of the holder's\npersonal affairs shall be acquiesced in by society only on condition\nthat the holder of that power be willing definitely to assume\nresponsibility to society. What we demand of men we demand also of God,\nand we have the scriptural warrant for believing that these human\ndemands are themselves hints concerning the nature of God. Now, no one\ndoubts the power of God. All scientific and philosophic trends are\ntoward the centralization of power in some unitary source. All our\nstudy of nature and of society convinces us that there is a unity of\npower somewhere. If this be true, there must be raised with increasing\npersistence the question as to whether the World-Power is acting under\na sense of moral responsibility. There were days when this problem was\nnot raised as it is now. Men assumed for centuries that the king could\ndo no wrong; that he could order his people about in the most arbitrary\nfashion. In our own time we have seen advocacy of the doctrine that the\nman of wealth is a law unto himself in the handling of the power that\ncomes with wealth. Such mistakes never were really a part of the\nbiblical idea. In shaping the threefold notion of priest and prophet\nand king to make the people familiar with the functions of God-sent\nleadership the strokes of emphasis always fell on the responsibility of\nthe prophet to proclaim his message at whatever cost to himself, of the\npriest to keep in mind the sacredness of his office, and of the king to\nrule in righteousness. These demands were inevitably carried up to God:\nand in Christ the supreme effort is made to convince us that we can\ntrust in the God of Christ, though we may not be able to understand\nhim. This is not the place for an attempt at determining the essentials\nof the Christ career. Some features of that life, however, as\nillustrating responsibility in the use of power can be hinted at here.\nTake the story of the temptation. We are not concerned now with the\nhistoric form in which the temptation occurred. After the historians\nhave made all the changes in the drapery of the story they choose, the\nfact remains that the temptation narrative deals with the essential\nproblems of any leader confronted with a task like that of Christ. The\nMessianic consciousness was a consciousness of power. How should the\npower be used? Should it be used to minister to human needs like those\nof hunger? That would promise a quick solution of a sort. The peoples\nwould eagerly rally around the new deliverer. Should there be an\nattempt to utilize the political machinery of the time? There could be\nno doubt of the effectiveness of this plan. Should the exalted lofty\nspiritual state of the Master be relied upon to carry him through\nspectacular displays of extraordinary might that would capture the\npopular mind? Each of these suggestions presented its advantages. Each\nmight have been rightfully followed by some one with less power than\nJesus had; but for him any one of them would have involved a misuse of\npower, and hence he cast them all aside.\n\nThe miracles reported of Christ have this for their peculiarity, that\nthey show a power conceived of as divine used for a righteous purpose.\nIt is significant that practically all the miracles described are those\nof healing or of relief. The kind of miracle that an irresponsible\nleader would have wrought is suggested by the advice of James and John\nto Jesus to call down fire on an inhospitable Samaritan village. The\nreported reply of Jesus, \"Ye know not what spirit you are of,\" is the\nfinal comment on such use of power. Now, after we have made the most of\nthe miracles recorded of Jesus, after we have made them seem just as\nextraordinary in themselves as possible, their most extraordinary\nfeature is this use to which the power was put; and on the other hand,\nif we strip the miracles of everything that suggests breach of natural\nlaw and make them just revelations of super-normal control over nature\nthrough laws like those whose existence and significance we are\nbeginning to glimpse to-day, still we cannot empty these narratives of\ntheir significance as revealing a morally responsible use of force. Let\nus be just as orthodox as we can, the purpose of the use of the forces\nis the supreme miracle; let us be just as destructively radical as we\nplease, we cannot eliminate from the Scriptures this impression of\nChrist as one who used power with a sense of responsibility. This\nrevelation is one which the ages have always desired.\n\nWe must be careful to keep in mind the connection of the Christ life\nwith what came before it and what has proceeded from it. Here we have\nthe advantage which comes of regarding the Bible as the result of a\nprocess running through the centuries. If the Bible were not a library,\nbut only a single book, written at a particular time, we might well be\nattracted by the nobility of its teachings, but might despair of ever\nmaking the teachings effective. There is no proving in syllogistic\nfashion that Jesus was what he claimed to be, or that he was what his\ndisciples thought of him as being; but when we see a massive revealing\nmovement centering on the idea of God as revealed in Christ, when we\nsee the acceptance of the spirit of Christ opening the path to\ncommunion with the Divine, and when we find increasing hosts of persons\nfinding larger life in that approach to the Divine, we begin to discern\nthe vast significance of the scriptural doctrine that in Christ we have\nthe revelation of the Christlike God.\n\nIn this discussion we have been careful to avoid the terms of formal\nand creedal orthodoxy. This is not because the present writer is out of\nsympathy with these terms, but because he is trying to keep to the main\nimpression produced by the New Testament. The fundamental scriptural\nfact is that in Jesus the early believers saw God; they came to rest in\nGod as revealed in Christ. This is true of the picture of Christ in the\nearliest New Testament writings. Modern scholarship has not been able\nto find any documents of a time when the disciples did not think of\nJesus as the revealer of God. If the disciples had not thought of Jesus\nthus, they would have found little reason to write of him. Now the\nscriptural authors employ various terms to declare the unique intimacy\nof Christ with God. In these expositions Jewish and Greek and even\nRoman thought terms play their part. Passages like the opening\nsentences of the fourth Gospel, or like the great chapter in the\nPhilippians, are always profoundly satisfying and suggestive in their\ninterpretation of the fundamental fact, but that fundamental fact\nitself is the all-essential--that in Christ the New Testament writers\nthought of themselves as having seen God, and as having gazed into the\nvery depths of the spirit of the Father in heaven. Believing as we do,\nmoreover, in the helpfulness of the creedal statements of the church,\nwe must nevertheless avow that such statements are secondary to the\nimpression made upon the biblical writers by actual contact with the\nChrist. We must not lose sight of the primacy of that impression as we\nstudy our Scriptures. We must not limit the glory of the impression\nitself by the limitations of some of the explanations which we\nundertake. Much harm has been done the understanding the Scriptures by\nspeaking as if some of our creedal statements concerning Christ are\nthemselves Scriptures! The scriptural Christ is greater than any\ncreedal characterization of Christ thus far undertaken.\n\nOf recent years an attempt has been made to prove that no such person\nas Jesus ever existed. The attempt has proved futile, but it has had a\nsignificance altogether different from what the propounders of the\ntheory intended. The original aim was to show the contradictions of the\ntestimony concerning Jesus and the inadequacies of the testimony to his\nexistence as an historical Person. The result has been to show that the\nreal significance of the Christ life is not to be found in any\nparticular utterance, or in any specific deed, but in the total impact\nthat he made upon the consciousness of man as suggesting the immediate\npresence of the Divine. The quality of the Christ life satisfies us in\nthe inner depths as bearing witness to the quality of the God life. We\nhave no sympathy with the views of the critics just mentioned; but we\nmust say that no matter how the thought of God in Christ got abroad, no\nmatter how mistaken our thought of the historical facts at the\nbeginning of the Christian era, the belief in the Christlike God\nnevertheless did get abroad. There is no effacing that conception from\nthe New Testament. No matter what detailed changes in the narrative\nitself radical criticism may think itself capable of making, the door\nwas opened wide enough in the Christ for the divine light to stream\nthrough. We said in the last chapter that the most important feature of\nthe biblical revelation is God himself. We must now say that the\nsupreme fact about God is Christ.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nTHE BOOK OF THE CROSS\n\nIf the central feature of the Scriptures is their idea of God, and if\nthe climax of the biblical revelation is Christ, the greatest fact\nabout Christ from the point of view of the Bible is his cross. We say\n_fact_ advisedly, for we are not dealing with the theories that have\nsprung up to interpret the meaning of the cross. We are trying to deal\nsolely with the direct impressions which seem to have been made upon\nthe scriptural writers as to the place of the cross in the revealing\nmovement.\n\nWe said in the last chapter that the Scriptures reach their climax in\nthe doctrine that God is in Christ. The cross of Christ carries to most\neffective revelation the Christlike character of God. While we are not\ntreating now the various creedal dogmas as to the person of Christ, we\nmust not forget that those dogmas have essayed as part of their task\nthe bringing of God close to men. The truth embodied in the text that\nthe Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world is essential to\nknowing the Scriptures. We have seen that even as a warrior Jehovah was\nthought of as willing to bear his part of the burdens of the chosen\npeople. We have seen growing the idea that Jehovah was under moral\nobligation to carry through the uplifting work which he had begun. We\nhave seen prophets attain to glimpses of the meaning of suffering for\nthe divine life, and we have beheld the culmination in the suffering of\nChrist. In those perplexing phrases of the creeds like, \"Very God of\nvery God,\" the aim of the church has been perfectly clear--to guard the\nscriptural idea that God was so truly in Christ that the sufferings of\nChrist were the sufferings of God. Even when least intelligible the\npain of men becomes more easily borne if men can believe that in some\nreal sense their pain is also the pain of God. That God is Christlike\nin capacity to suffer is in itself a revelation of no small consequence.\n\nIn the cross of Christ we see exalted with surpassing power the belief\nthat God acts out of righteousness in his relation to the universe and\nto men. It must needs be that Christ suffer. The writers seem unable to\nescape the conviction that they are beholding the working of divinely\ninevitable moral necessities. These moral obligations are not to be\nconceived of as external to God or imposed on him from outside of\nhimself. In the Scriptures they seem, rather, to be expressions of his\nown nature. When the writers of theories about the cross lay stress on\nthose profound obligations of God toward moral law which must be\ndischarged in the work of redemption, the Scriptural basis underneath\nsuch theories is the implication that God, by the very fact of what he\nis, must act righteously. His power is not his own in such sense that\nhe can act from arbitrary or self-centered motives. The Judge of all\nthe earth must do right, at whatever cost to himself. The Scriptures\nkeep close to the thought of God as a supremely powerful Being under\nsupreme responsibility in the use of his power. If we can believe the\nScripture that in Christ we see God, and that the bearing, of Christ\nduring his suffering reveals really and uniquely the bearing of God\nhimself, we have a revelation of the grasp with which moral\nresponsibility holds the Almighty against even any momentary slip into\narbitrariness. Sometimes we hear the sufferings of Christ preached as a\npattern of nonresistance for men. It is permissible thus to interpret\nthe cross within limitations; but this is not the essential aspect of\nthe cross, as explaining its hold on men. The all-important doctrine as\nto the use of power is hinted at in the Master's word that he had but\nto call for legions of angels if he so chose. Under most extreme\nprovocation the forces of the Almighty held to their appointed task. If\nthe Almighty had been conceived of as a Despot or an Egotist, he would\nhave been expected to resort at once to revengeful violence in the\npresence of such insults as those of the persecutors of the Son of God.\nThe Source of all activity can hardly be conceived of as passive; but\nthe passivity of the Christ of the cross suggests that no outrage by\nmen can divert the almighty power from its moral purpose. This is\nreally a gathering together and lifting on high of the doctrine of the\nSermon on the Mount, that God maketh the sun to shine upon the just and\nthe unjust, and causeth his rain to fall on the evil and the good. That\nis to say, while the Bible thinks of the cross as laying bare the\nAlmighty's reaction against evil, it also thinks of that cross as\nshowing a God who will not be disturbed by any merely \"personal\"\nconsiderations. We behold the Almighty's use of power for the advance\nof a moral kingdom. The Almighty is set before us as exerting all his\npower for the relief of men. The cross makes the profoundest revelation\nof the moral fixedness and self-control of God so long as we hold to\nthe scriptural representation. It is to be regretted that many\ntheological theories break away from the Scripture basis and build upon\nassumptions which are artificial, not to say unmoral: or, rather, in\ntheir striving after system they get away from the atmosphere of moral\nsuggestiveness with which the Gospels and Epistles surround the cross.\nThat God will do his part in the redemption of men is set before us in\nthe cross. That part can be nothing short of making men yearn to be\nlike Christ and of aiding them in their struggle for the Christlike\ncharacter. It will be remembered that in the last chapter we called\nattention to the hopelessness of the Christian ideal viewed as an ideal\nin itself without a dynamic to help men to realize the ideal. If Christ\nis only to reveal to us the character toward which men are to strive,\nwe are in despair. That one man has reached such perfection is in\nitself no promise that other men may reach that perfection. Moreover,\nthe excellence of Christ is not only a moral excellence; or if it is\nmoral excellence, that excellence involves a balance of intellectual\nattributes which is for us practically out of reach. Now, Christ is the\nideal, but the ideal is one toward which we not only labor in our own\nstrength, but one whose attainment by us is an object of solicitude for\nGod himself. And so we see in the cross a patience which will bear with\nmen to the utmost, and which will reenforce them as they press toward\nthe goal. The glory of Christianity is largely hi the paradox that it\nsets before men an unattainable ideal and then commands them to attain\nthe ideal. If the cross is nothing but a revelation of an ideal for\nmen, this paradox is insoluble and intolerable. In the scriptural light\nof the cross, however, we catch the glory not of an abstract ideal, but\nof a Father's love for his children--not of the commands of conscience\nin the abstract, but of the desires of a personal Friend who will lift\nmen as they stumble and fall. The ground for this patience seems as we\nread to be in the very nature of God himself. God has brought men into\nthis world without consulting them, he has dowered them with the\nterrific boon of freedom, he has set them in hard places; but he has\ndone this out of a moral and loving purpose. He therefore makes more\nallowances for men than exacting men ever can make for themselves. He\nputs at the service of men so much of his power as they can appropriate\nby their moral effort. The Christ of the cross is taught as the truth\nabout God--the God who is at once the supremely real and the supremely\nideal places his powers at the service of men who would make their\nChrist-ideal progressively real in themselves.\n\nThe power of the Bible over men centers around the teaching that the\ncross not only reveals God as morally bound to redeem men, but that it\nalso shows us the divine aim in redemption. Men are to be redeemed by\nseeking for forgiveness in the name of the moral life set on high by\nthe cross, but the repentant soul is to show its sincerity by devotion\nto the task and spirit of cross-bearing. The aim of the cross is to\nbring men together into a fellowship of the cross, in a fellowship of\nsuffering for the sake of the moral triumph to be won at the end. We\nare accustomed to think of suffering as implying the possibility of\njoy. The man who can feel keen sorrow can feel keen joy; they who have\nthe power to weep have also the power to laugh. In the final kingdom\nthe weeping shall be turned into joy. But, according to the Scriptures,\nit is not necessary for the disciples to wait until the consummation\nbefore entering into the joy of their Lord. There is an entrance to the\ndivine mind through bearing the cross. Those who desired to learn of\nChrist as true disciples were expected to take up the cross and carry\nit daily. The Master also declared that the disciples were to think of\nthemselves as blessed when they endured persecution for righteousness'\nsake, for men had persecuted the prophets in all ages. The implication\nis that knowledge of and sympathy with the prophets came out of\ncross-bearing like that of the prophets. To use a simple illustration:\na student of the careers of the leaders of any reform might gather a\nmass of information about the reformers in an outside kind of fashion,\nas by the study of books, or by visits to the scenes of their\nstruggles. Such a student, however, could not master the inner spirit\nof a reformer's life until he himself had battled for some cause at\nrisk to himself. So the man who seeks to bear the cross of Christ is on\nthe path to sympathetic inner knowledge of the spirit of Christ. In our\nsecond chapter we called attention to the truth that approach to\nknowledge of God is through the doing of the will of God. Doing of the\nwill, according to Jesus, means much more than just a round of good\ndeeds. It means carrying the burdens which are inevitable in\ncross-bearing. There is good reason for believing that the very highest\nstep in spiritual learning is taken only through the willingness to\nbear the cross. In our modern educational systems we lay varying\ndegrees of stress upon the importance of different methods of acquiring\nknowledge. There is at the bottom of the scale the method of mastering\nthe instruction of the teacher by attention and reflection. There is,\nnext, the method of learning through one's own experiment--through\nusing microscope or telescope or textbook for oneself. There are,\nfurther, the social aids to the quickening of the mind as groups of\nstudents study and discuss together. But the deepest knowledge comes as\nthe student feels his sympathy and feeling involved. If he must pay\nhimself out for the acquisition of the truth, or if he must defend his\nconclusions at great cost to himself, this experience which involves\nthe feeling involves also the sharpening of the intellect. The eyes of\nthe soul are opened to the subtler intuitions. Thus it is in the\nrevelations of the divine purpose in the Scriptures. It is hard to make\nout how anybody can hope to master a revelation of a cross-bearing God\nwithout himself being a cross-bearer. In the New Testament narratives\nof Passion Week the Master is reported as winning his surest\nconvictions of the presence of God and of the victory of his truth at\nthe very instant when he entered into the extreme depths of suffering.\nIn the after days it was when the saints faced stoning that they saw\nthe heavens opening; it was the apostle who had suffered hardships\nalmost too numerous to mention who got the most positive conviction of\nthe reward which awaited him. In the school of Christ the very heaviest\nstress must fall upon the indispensability of cross-bearing as a means\nto understanding.\n\nNot only does the biblical revelation see in the cross of Christ the\nculminating manifestation of the character of God, and of the purpose\nof God in redemption, but it also shows to us the divine method in\nhelping men. We have spoken of those who dwell upon the Master's\nnonresistance as a model of passivity in the presence of evil. The\nexample of Christ when thus treated is in danger of being\nmisinterpreted. The Christ of the cross was passive so far as physical\nforce was concerned; but he was never more intensely active in the\nhigher ranges of his faculties--in self-control and in alertness to the\nfiner whisperings of the spirit. The Christ's non-resistance to the\nphysical might of evil is not to be interpreted as acquiescence on the\npart of the Divine toward the ravages of evil, but, rather, as the\ndivine method of thwarting evil by allowing it to reveal itself. No\namount of preaching about the nature of evil can equal in eloquence the\nself-revelations of that nature as it works itself out into expression.\nWhile in a degree the self-revelation of evil put forth against Christ\nwas unique, yet we must remember that the sins which put Christ to\ndeath are just those commonest in all time. Judas was disappointed. He\ncarried spite no more tenaciously than the ordinary heart is capable of\ntreasuring it. Caiaphas desired simply to hold his own position and\npreserve the peace of his nation. Very likely the type of opinion in\nthe midst of which Caiaphas moved would have pronounced that he\nrendered a disagreeable, but nevertheless necessary patriotic service\nin his condemnation of Christ. Pilate too meant well, but was afraid of\nthe crowd. His friends may have commended his administrative wisdom in\nallowing the people to have their own way. It was the play of just such\nordinary forces of sin against an extraordinary holiness that made it\nimpossible for the mightiest revelation ever vouchsafed to man to work\nthrough the earthly activity of Jesus for more than a few months. The\nScripture does not have much to do with abstract sins; with concrete\nsins of men as we actually find them, it has much to do.\n\nThe Scriptures make it very clear that there is something which\nsatisfies God himself in the work of redemption. God acts out of moral\nobligation, out of self-respect, out of love. But he acts always in\nrespect for men as free moral beings. The cross appeals to the free\nspirit of men to behold the nature of evil, and to flee from that evil\ntoward their redeeming God. If the redemption is to be a moral\nredemption, the last detail of the method must be moral. The power of\nthe Almighty must not be used to break down freedom of men. It would be\ntheoretically possible for an almighty power to bring to bear such\npressures upon human wills as to crush them, but the strongest\nrepresentation of the power of God in the New Testament does not go to\nthe length of hinting at interference with the freedom of men. Men are\nto be saved as free men or not at all. We might conceivably imagine the\nAlmighty as granting such indubitable vision of the material rewards of\nrighteousness and the material loss of unrighteousness as would\nirresistibly draw masses of a certain grade of men into the Kingdom\nwithout a morally free consent to righteousness. Or we might conceive\nof the Almighty as so weighing this or that factor of environment as to\ndiminish almost to the vanishing point the free choice of men. This\nkind of compulsion would not be moral. The only compulsions of the\ncross are those of a moral God splendidly attractive on his own account.\n\nIt will have occurred to some readers by this time that we have said\nvery little about the love of God in our discussion of the Scriptures,\nwhereas that love is the outstanding feature of the biblical\nrevelation. Our reply is that we have been trying to be true to the\nimpression made by the Scriptures as to the kind of love which we must\nthink of as expressing the deepest fact in God's life. We would not in\nthe least minimize the truth that love is the last word of the\nscriptural revelation; but in our modern life we are apt to get away\nfrom the quality of the love revealed in the Bible. The love of the\ncross is built upon the righteousness which runs through the Sacred\nBook from the beginning to the end. A god of indifferent moral quality\nmight love. The old Greek gods had favorites upon whom they lavished\ntheir affections. A god might be conceived of as an amiable and\nwell-wishing father, foolishly indulgent toward his children. The love\nof the New Testament, however, is the love of a Father who dares to\nappeal to the children to make heroic response; and who shows his own\nlove for them in the lengths to which he will go for them. Moral love\nwill go the full length of heroic self-sacrifice. We cannot help\nbelieving that it is the quality of God's love, rather than the mere\nfact of that love, which is the explanation of the power of the\nbiblical teaching.\n\nA friend of mine many years ago wrote a book which he called The Hero\nGod. The publishers objected to the title because they saw in it a\ntouch of sensationalism. No title, however, could have more adequately\nset forth the biblical God. God is the hero of the Bible. His heroism\nappears in growing revelation from the beginning. It shows itself\nsuperbly in his willingness to bear the burdens of mankind and in the\nappeals which he makes for response from men. The picture is of a God\nwho dares to believe in men and who dares to call on them for the\nextremes of self-sacrificing devotion, not to himself as an arbitrary\nPerson, but to himself as the center of the moral life which is above\nall other life worth while. It is open to anyone to object that this\nbiblical picture does not necessarily hold good for God; but it is\nhardly possible to object that the picture is not biblical. The picture\nstands in its own right and makes its own appeal. The only way to test\nit in life is to yield to its appeal.\n\nIf we are asked to account for the power of the Bible, we are at a loss\nfor any one single statement. The most compendious reply is the\nmagnetism of the love of God as revealed in Christ. This is so broad,\nhowever, that it may not make a direct and vivid impression. We may\nsay, then, that one element of the magnetism of the biblical revelation\nis the magnetism of the appeal to the heroic. Whatever else the Bible\nmay or may not be, it is not a book of soft and easy things. Breaths of\nthe most rigorous life blow across every page. It is made for man in\nthat it calls men to the service of the highest and best. The religious\nsystems which make the fewest and least demands upon their followers\nmost speedily fall away; those that call for the utmost are most likely\nto meet the enthusiastic response. There is a frank honesty about the\nbiblical appeal which holds a charm for all men in whom there are any\nsparks of real manhood. The severities of the Christian life are\nnowhere disguised. Men are never lured on by false pretenses. The path\nis the path of cross-bearing, and the reward is the comradeship between\nGod and man as they together work toward the highest goal, a\ncomradeship which of itself brings relief to men burdened with the\nmystery of the universe and agonized by remorse over sin.  This essay\nis quite as significant for what it has not said as for what it has\nsaid. In our omissions we have tried to keep clear the main outlines of\nscriptural revelation. We have sought to hold fast to principles rather\nthan to discuss details. We have done this because we have believed\nthat there is more value for religious understanding in pointing out\nthe loftier biblical peaks which give the direction of the whole range\nthan in tracing out pathways through detailed passages. Moreover, we\nhave been afraid to employ many theoretical terms lest we blur the\nquick moral impressions made by the Scripture phrasings. For example,\nit may be objected that our treatment of the character of God is\naltogether inadequate. We have not thus far said a word about the\nTrinity, for example, or about atonement. The reason is that we believe\nthat any theories about God must base themselves upon the moral\nsuggestions of the Scriptures; and our business is with these rather\nthan with the theories. The received revelation concerning God would\nwarrant us in fashioning any theory as to the richness of his inner\nconstitution which might even measurably satisfy our minds. The\nscriptural atmosphere as to the moral life in God must, however, be\nkept in the chief place in all of our theological theories. Atonement\nmust be interpreted chiefly in terms of ethical steadiness if it is to\nbuild on a biblical foundation. But the instant we use formal terms\nlike \"Trinity\" and \"atonement\" we have taken at least one step away\nfrom the Scriptures. Again, we have said nothing about Divine\nProvidence. The Bible is full of instances of providences, but here\nalso we have preferred to let the fundamental moral character of the\nbiblical God speak for itself. We may have our own belief that there is\nno scriptural warrant for that separation which obtains in much\ntheology between the processes of God and the processes of nature. We\nmay admit that the Hebrew had no very systematically framed theory of\nthe processes of nature, but he deemed God to be in such close touch\nwith nature as easily to control its forces for a good end. In two\naccounts of the crossing of the Red Sea by the Israelites we have an\napparent contradiction which is at bottom not a contradiction. In one\naccount God seems to cause the waters to wall up on both sides of the\nIsraelites in defiance of the laws of nature. In another God\naccomplishes the drying of the path through the blowing of a strong\neast wind. The Hebrew would not have troubled himself much with the\napparent contradiction, for he would have conceived of God as the chief\nfactor in either event, and of his purpose as having the right of way.\nThere is thus no great value in discussing specific instances as long\nas the care of God for his children is the animating purpose of the\nentire biblical content. So with answers to prayer--the God who is\nwilling to go for men to the lengths revealed in the cross will surely\nanswer any prayer worth answering. The essential is to lift prayer up\ninto harmony with the entire revealing and redeeming movement, and to\nconceive of it as a fitting of the whole life into the purposes of a\nmoral God. Certain general requirements would always have to be met.\nPrayer would have really to deal with what is best for the individual,\nbest for those around him, and most in harmony with the character of\nGod himself. So, again, with the progress of the kingdom of God on\nearth--the God of whose nature the cross is the final revelation can be\ntrusted to do the best possible for the Kingdom here and now. Much\ndebate about the second coming of Christ misses the great moral\nprinciples which are the heart of the Christian revelation and loses\nitself in the incidental forms in which those principles were declared.\nThe best preparation for the coming of the kingdom of Christ is\nabsorption in the principles of Christ and in the spirit of Christ. To\nget away from these in our search for external and material conditions\nwhich are the mere vehicle of the biblical thought is not only to\npursue a will-o'-the-wisp, but to injure true spiritual progress. Jesus\nhas given us the spiritual principles which must control the destiny of\nany society here and now. In the light of the Christ-faith revealed in\nthe cross we must not despair of the redemption of men by the city-full\nand by the nation-full, for the greatest confidence ever placed in men\nis the implied trust of the cross of Christ. The Almighty at the\nbeginning paid an immense tribute to the human race when he flung it\nout into the gale of this existence. In the light of the cross we\ncannot believe that He expected the race to sink. In the cross the\nChrist who revealed God's own mind showed the length he was willing to\ngo in confidence that men would finally turn to him with all the powers\nof their lives. To throw up our hands and say that the world is getting\nworse and we can do nothing without a speedy physical return of the\nChrist is to overlook the spiritual forces of the cross.\n\nWe have said nothing about immortality. What the Scriptures themselves\nsay is largely incidental. The Master did not allow himself to be drawn\ninto any extended conversation about the details of a future life, but\nhe did give us the God of the cross. In the presence of that cross we\ncan profess the utmost confidence in the eternal life of the sons of\nGod, while at the same time acknowledging the utmost ignorance as to\nany of the material conditions of the future life. It is commonly\nassumed that the resurrection of Christ proves that we shall likewise\nrise, but the rising of Christ does not of itself prove that others\nshall rise. The cross, however--showing the extent to which the Divine\nis willing to go for men--is the ground of our hope. God will not leave\nhis loved ones to see corruption. In a word, the cross of Christ\ngathers up all the biblical truth. It is a revelation of God's own\ncharacter, of his hope for men, of the methods by which he seeks to win\nmen, and of the ground of our faith in a right outcome for men and for\nsociety.\n\nWe may be permitted to summarize by saying that scientific and\nhistorical biblical study is a preparation for the knowledge of the\nScriptures; that it is exceedingly important that the student approach\nwith the correct preliminary point of view. The revelation of the inner\nsignificance, however, does not dawn until there is recognition of the\nneed of obedience to the principles laid down in the Scriptures. And\nthis obedience must be broad enough to include zeal for the uplift of\nour fellow men in all phases of their lives. Out of righteous living\nthe devoted life, we believe, will see that the greatest fact of the\nBible is God; that the greatest fact of God is Christ; that the\ngreatest fact of Christ is the cross.","title":"Understanding the Scriptures","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":25950}