Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

wicked man (Balaam), under a deep sense of God and religion, persisting still in his wickedness, and preferring the wages of unrighteousness, even when he had before him a lively view of death, and that approaching period of his days which should deprive him of all those advantages for which he was prostituting himself; and likewise a prospect, whether certain or uncertain, of a future state of retribution: all this joined with an explicit ardent wish that when he was to leave this world he might be in the condition of a righteous man. Good God, what inconsistency, what perplexity is here! With what different views of things, with what contradictory principles of action, must such a mind be torn and distracted! It was not unthinking carelessness, by which he ran on headlong in vice and folly, without ever making a stand to ask himself what he was doing. No; he acted on the cool motives of interest and advantage. Neither was he totally hard and callous to impressions of religion, what we call abandoned, for he absolutely denied to curse Israel. When reason assumes her place, when convinced of his duty, when he owns and feels, and is actually under the influence of the divine authority: whilst he is carrying on his views to the grave, the end of all temporal greatness: under this sense of things, with the better character and more desirable state present, full before him, in his thoughts, in his wishes, voluntarily to choose the worst-what fatality is here! Or how otherwise can such a character be explained?"

The character of Balaam was a composite one. He is represented as unwilling to do what God forbade, trying in every way to find some excuse by which he might secure the rewards of iniquity. He is a character full of contrasts and replete with instruction. "And perished in the gainsaying of Korah." This has been rendered "perished by the gainsaying, as Korah." This reference to the rebellion of Korah against Moses and Aaron is described in the sixteenth chapter of Numbers. This rebellion of Korah, Dothan, and Abiram was fearfully punished. The rebellion of those in the time of Jude is here set forth as similar in kind. They opposed the authority of the apostles of our Lord God. Jude selects these noted instances of the Old Testament transgressions as a warning to the sinners of his time. Weiss in his commentary thus explains the passage: "As Cain, the first example of sin which has broken forth out of the God-created human race, forms a contrast to Abel, thus they have followed his example instead of going in the ways of the saints such as the new creation produces. As Balaam, at the prospect of sensual enjoy. ment which sin held out to him permitted himself to be led upon the same evil path, they, for the same reason, have rushed without restraint upon the same deceptive way. As the companions of Korah through their rebellion against the Divine Order were destroyed, thus they are to meet with the same destruction."

This class is further described in verse 12: "These are they who are hidden rocks in your love feasts when they feast with you, shepherds that without fear feed themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;" The Greek word rendered in the ordinary version "spots," in the Revised

Version is rendered more appropriately "rocks." The word is susceptible of either meaning but the context requires the rendering of the Revised Version. They are described as hidden rocks on which vessels are rent. Weiss says: "They are those who are desecrating the love feasts of the congregation by unhesitatingly degenerating these into common carousals and using them for the satisfaction of their pleasures and thereby depriving them of their character as feasts of love, the bearing of which we saw in 1 Cor. 11, 21."

"Shepherds that without fear feed themselves." They have no regard for brotherhood, each seeking to satisfy his own needs and appetites without regard to others. These are disturbers of the church, recklessly promoting divisions and anxious only to gratify themselves. It seems that this was done under the guise of Christian affection, of which the Christian love feasts were characteristic symbols. The figures in this whole paragraph are very striking and are thus paraphrased by Weiss: "In four grand pictures Jude describes their characters from the different points of view. Waterless clouds which are driven about by every wind and do not bring the rain which is so earnestly desired and which these clouds promised, are images of these seeming Christians. The complete death of their spiritual life is described in a fourfold ascending scale in the picture of the trees which the autumn winds deprive of their leaves and which now stand there bare; of those which do not at all bring forth any fruit on account of their natural unfruitfulness; of those which already for the second time have died away, and of those which have been entirely rooted out and accordingly can no longer prosper."

Verse 13 compares them further in vivid language: "Wild waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the blackness of darkness has been reserved for ever." This picture of shame and instability does not require formal exposition. Having thus described the characters in such vivid colors, Jude proceeds to assert that this condition of things has been in accordance with prophecy.

The fact that they are subjects of prophetic announcement emphasizes their guilt. Verses 14 and 15 say: "And to these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, Behold, the Lord came with ten thousands of his holy ones, to execute judgment upon all." The margin, “his holy myriads." The Revised Version is nearly in the language of the book of Enoch, and has been thought to be a quotation from it. The book of Enoch is not one of the canonical books and on that account some question the canonicity of this epistle. It was a book probably compiled by a Jew in the first century. The employment of the language of a noncanonical book does not involve the authority of the book but rather indicates the adaptation of the part selected to the subject. On a question of fact it would imply the correctness of the fact, but need not go further. Wordsworth cites Jerome as saying that in his age "this epistle was authorized by general reception among the Holy Scriptures; and he observes in another place that Saint Paul also in his canonical epistles cites from books not canonical-and that he also quotes heathen poets."

ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH

ANOTHER "NEW THEOLOGY"

THERE has been during the past few weeks a violent disturbance in the theological sky of Great Britain. Fortunately, however, from present indications it is purely local and temporary in its nature. Like the Crapsey and similar agitations in this country exploited by the newspapers, it will probably pass away without leaving a single trace in its wake. The immediate occasion of this sudden breeze is the Rev. R. J. Campbell, and the center of this "storm in a teacup" as Canon Henson has designated it-a mere flurry, "without the element of a movement," is the City Temple, High Holborn, London, better known to Americans who have visited the British metropolis as Dr. Joseph Parker's old church. Canon Henson, discussing the subject, like many others, queries whether the "new theology," preached in the City Temple, be new, nay more, whether it is in any sense of the word, "theology." He says: "Nine tenths of the new theology is made up of platitudes, and the remaining tenth is fallacy." If this be true, it is hard to see what there is left. The above criticism is severe, the more so, since Mr. Campbell has claimed that the learned canon and he practically occupy the same ground theologically. Mr. Campbell, as our readers know, has been, of late, indulging in some strange utterances, language utterly at variance with the generally accepted doctrines of the Protestant churches in English-speaking countries. To judge from numerous addresses, sermons, and articles there is reason for inferring that Mr. Campbell denies many of the cardinal doctrines as they are held and generally understood by the Free churches of Great Britain. Of these we might mention (1) The deity of Jesus Christ. Lest we may do him injustice it will be better to let him speak for himself. Take the following recent deliverance: "My contention is that Unitarianism and Trinitarianism alike have tended too much in the past to separate between man and God. In the new theology the old issue between Unitarian and Trinitarian simply ceases to exist; we do not need the names." This is frank, even if not quite clear. Here is where the man distinguishes, when forced to do so, between the terms “divinity" and "deity" of Jesus Christ. Alas, the term "divinity" has been freely used in reference to our Saviour by professedly orthodox people who deny his deity. We all know that a thorough-going Unitarian is quite ready to call Jesus divine, but will not hear of his deity. The Unitarian has no place for the deity of Jesus Christ or the word "trinity" in his creed. Mr. Campbell says: "We believe that Jesus is and was divine, but so are we. . . . Every man is a potential Christ." Not admitting the deity of our Lord we are not surprised that along with this he brushes away the doctrine of (2) The atonement made by Jesus Christ for sin. Let us again quote Mr. Campbell: "Whatever can be said about the love of Christ may be said about the love of John Smith.... The

atoning love is that in which Christ repeats his offering for mankind in every heart given up to him. The belief that Jesus suffered some mysterious penalty and took away sin is a moral mischief." Strange language this, certainly unworthy the name of sober theology, old or new. No wonder that an unbelieving critic, an avowed freethinker, in commenting upon the above sentences has delivered himself thus: "The whole argument is a tangle of nonsense, for according to Mr. Campbell Christ is indisputably divine-but so are we. Christ's love and the love of John Smith may be possessed in terms of the same value. But the love of Christ is an atoning love, and the belief in an atonement is a moral mischief." If words have any meaning whatever, Mr. Campbell does not believe in the doctrine of (3) Sin. His language discussing this subject. is at times strangely mixed. It is often enveloped in vague generalizations, in nebulous metaphysical rehash of pseudo-Hegelianism and hazy philosophical pantheistic jargon. And yet it is clear enough to show that the new theology of which he is an exponent, has no place for the fact, much less for the awfulness, of sin. If there be no sin, the suffering of our Lord for sin can be, must be, dispensed with, nor can there be any need of an atonement. If there be no sin, there can be no punishment in another life for sin. "Ultimately," we are assured, "every soul will be perfected." "If God," says Mr. Campbell, "had cared whether we sin or not, why did he create man and make it not only possible, but practically impossible for him not to sin? Men have suffered more than God from sin. What harm," he asks, "has sin ever done God?" Such questions are not new. They are, at any rate, as old as Job. May we not hope that the Almighty may appear to Mr. Campbell too, and from the clouds bring him back to the faith of his fathers? But lest our readers may think we put the case too strongly, let us again have recourse to Mr. Campbell's own words, as they came from his pen, or at least, as published over his own name, in the Examiner, March 20, 1906: "Sin itself is a quest for God-a blundering quest, but a quest for all that. The man who got dead drunk last night did so because of the impulse within him to break through the barriers of his limitations to express himself, and to realize the more abundant life. His self-indulgence just came to that: he wanted, if only for a brief hour, to live the larger life, to expand the soul, to enter untrodden regions, and gather to himself new experiences. That drunken debauch was a quest for life, a quest for God. Men in their sinful follies today, and their blank atheism, and their foul blasphemies, their trampling upon things that are beautiful and good, are engaged in this dim, blundering quest for God, whom to know is life eternal. The roué you saw in Piccadilly last night, who went out to corrupt innocence and to wallow in filthiness of the flesh, was engaged in his blundering quest for God." In our opinion Colonel Ingersoll or Thomas Paine never uttered anything quite as blasphemous. The rankest rationalistic evolutionist who regards sin as a gradual ascension toward the truth can never utter anything with more poison in it. And yet in spite of all this and equally reckless deliverances, there are those who cry out at the top of their voice: "Fair play! Let there be perfect liberty

of thought and speech in every Protestant pulpit." No wonder that men of all creeds and of no creed at all protest and pity. Canon Henson, himself a liberal theologian, says: "Mr. Campbell dangerously underestimates the fact of sin and the consequent need for the atonement. My conviction is, if Christianity is to be a power in human life, we must preach Christ crucified." It seems, too, that Mr. Campbell treads dangerously near pantheism. He works the word "immanence" very hard. In our opinion the author of Psalm 139 had a clearer vision of God than he. One more citation from a recent interview (Daily Mail, January 12, 1907). He says: "God stands for the infinite reality whence all things proceed. . . . We believe man to be the revelation of God and the universe one means to the self-manifestation of God. . . . We believe there is no real distinction between humanity and deity. Our being is the same as God's, although our consciousness of it is limited." It has been well said that the logical outcome of all this is self-worship, which leads an infidel editor to ask whether "we know of any thing under the sun more worshipful, after all, than humanity?" Haeckel, the noted rationalistic scientist, on being asked for an opinion of the "new theology," replied: "Sickness prevents me from writing about Mr. Campbell's so-called 'new theology.' But yet I regard it as useless from the genuinely scientific standpoint to controvert theories which rest upon purely idealistic imaginations." This is an unkind thrust from a scientific man, for is it not a fact that most all of our modern theological newer critics pose as scientific thinkers in their methods and deductions?

It is a significant fact that the leading Unitarians of England have, so far, refrained from welcoming Mr. Campbell into their fold. It is no less significant that the advanced freethinkers of that country look down rather pityingly than otherwise upon this conversion of the young pastor of the City Temple. The following from a recent issue of The Clarion may be given as a sample: "The Rev. Mr. Campbell is only in the same situation as hundreds of others-the situation of most, perhaps, intellectual Christians. He has awakened to the fact that the period of Christianity is passing the way of what Christians contemptuously call paganism. The seismic labors of Darwin and Wallace have produced their convulsion. Christianity's rock is crumbling and breaking asunder, and those that still stand upon it are sorely distracted. A few have found a serene and solid lodgment on a higher plateau. . . . The Rev. Mr. Campbell is one of another class, who having found the ground slip from under them, glance wistfully upward to the new formed plateau, while yet clinging to this or that rotten branch of dead things in frantic fear of losing all they have cherished. . . . But Mr. Campbell will arrive. He has open eyes and a man's grip. We therefore watch his floundering and stumbling amongst the rubble, ruin, and rubbish of falling creeds, with easy minds." Mr. Campbell's heresies strike at the very vitals of our religion. With him it is not a question of the origin of the Psalter, the nature and origin of the Pentateuch, of two or more Isaiahs, nor yet of the virgin birth, or the authority of the Scriptures, but rather the rejection of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. Dr. Campbell Morgan has

...

« AnteriorContinuar »