light of the Christian's experience of Christ, is not "the historical
method," as it is usually employed. This latter method seems to ignore
the relation of Scripture to Christ, and to proceed in its
investigations as if there were no preexistent Christ to furnish its
principle. It insists upon treating Scripture as it would treat any
unreligious or heathen literature, and with no relation to its divine
authorship. It sees in Scripture only a promiscuous collection of
disjointed documents, with no living tie to bind them together, and no
significance beyond that of the time in which they were written. It
would treat the Bible as a man-made book, or rather, as a man-made
series of books, regardless of the fact that the plural "biblia," which
once represented the thought of the church, has, under the influence of
the divine Spirit, become "biblion" or Bible, a singular, and a proof
that Christian consciousness has not been satisfied with rationalistic
explanations, but has followed its natural impulses by attributing unity
to the word of Christ its Saviour. The separate "words" have been felt
to constitute the one "word of God," an organic whole, which fitly
represents the eternal "Word," of whom it is the voice and expression.
Scripture is not a congeries of earth-born fragments, but an organism,
pulsating with divine life. The "historical method" of which I speak can
never find that life, because it works only on the physical and
horizontal plane, ignoring the light which comes deductively from above,
and also the darkening and blinding influences which often operate
unconsciously from below.
XVI
SCRIPTURE AND MISSIONS
The "historical method" of Scripture interpretation, as it is often
employed, ends without Christ, because it begins without him. One of its
fundamental principles is that each passage of Scripture is to be
interpreted solely in the light of the knowledge and intent of the
person who wrote it. The One Hundred and Tenth Psalm, for example, can
have no reference to Christ, because the writer knew no other than the
Jewish king whose accession and whose power he anticipates. The Psalm
reads, "Jehovah said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I
make thine enemies thy footstool." The so-called historical critics
would make any interpretation of this passage as a designed prophecy of
Christ to be an unwarranted accommodation of it to a meaning which it
did not originally bear, and the conclusion is that we are wrong in
citing these words as an Old Testament assertion of Christ's deity. But,
unfortunately for this method of interpretation, we have, in the Gospels
of Matthew and of Mark, our Lord's own reference of this passage, not
simply to some Jewish ruler of olden time, but to the coming Messiah,
and since he was himself the Messiah, he refers it by implication to
himself. He does not deny, but rather grants, a primary reference of the
psalm to a son of David, for David was a king, and his son would be a
king. But he also sees in the psalm a prophecy that this son of David
would be a king whom David would call Lord. His searching examination
propounds to the unbelieving Jews the question, "What think ye of the
Christ? whose son is he?" And they say, "The Son of David." He answers
them by asking, "How then doth David, in the Spirit, call him Lord?" In
other words, inspiration declares Messiah to be a King of kings, and a
Lord of lords. Since the whole discussion is one with regard to the
nature and claims of the Messiah, and since the Messiah is not a mere
man like David, but is seated on the throne with Jehovah and is David's
Lord, Christ's answer is an assertion of his own deity. His answer
antedates, even if it did not suggest, Paul's later description of
Christ, as "declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the
Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." But the higher
critics differ in opinion from the Lord Jesus. They extricate themselves
from their difficulty by suggesting that Jesus, like other men, was
subject to the errors of his time. And so, not only Christ's knowledge
of Scripture and his authority as its interpreter are denied, but also
his knowledge of his own nature and place in the universe. If his
knowledge of things so essential be denied, what trust can we place in
any other of his utterances? To those who reason in this way, Christ
cannot possibly be divine--he is only a fallible man, self-deceived, and
so, deceiving others. The fault of the critics lies in their
presupposition. They have begun wrongly, by leaving out the primary fact
in the subject they investigate, namely, that the preincarnate Christ
was the author and inspirer of the Scripture which he afterward
interpreted. He used human agents, with their natural language and
surroundings, as his instruments, but he could, on the way to Emmaus,
"beginning from Moses and all the prophets," interpret to those humble
believers "in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself."
Scripture can have, and it does have, two authors, man and God, the
writer and Christ; and to ignore Christ in the evolution of the Bible is
to miss its chief meaning, to teach falsehood instead of truth, and,
consciously or unconsciously, to deny Christ's deity.
Cannot a document have more than one author? What are the facts in other
realms of art? In painting, did not Landseer get Millais to paint the
human figure into the picture of his dogs? In literature, is there any
more acknowledged fact than that Erckmann-Chatrian's battle-stories were
the work of two writers, and not of one? The work of a single author may
have two separate meanings, for Dante declares that his Divine Comedy
has one meaning that is personal, and another meaning that is universal.
Our extreme critics are as poor students of literature as they are of
life. Their narrowness of interpretation is due to a narrowness of
experience. If they knew Christ better, they would find in the
Twenty-third Psalm alone enough proof to upset their theory. "The Lord
is my shepherd, I shall not want," is an utterance inexplicable by
merely human authorship. To suppose that even a king of Israel who had
been a shepherd-boy could have written this psalm without divine
inspiration, in a day when all lands but little Palestine were wrapt in
a pall of heathen darkness, is to suppose that religion can exist and
flourish without a God.
"The testimony of Jesus," says the book of Revelation, "is the spirit of
prophecy." It was the recognition of constant references to Christ in
the Old Testament, that enabled the apostles to convince and convert the
unbelieving Jews. The absence of this recognition is the secret of all
the minimizing of Christ's attributes which is so rife in our day. Do
men believe in Christ's deity who ignore his promise to be with them to
the end of the world, and who refuse to address him in prayer? Could one
of these modern interpreters have taken the place of Philip, when he met
the Ethiopian eunuch? That dignitary had been reading the prophecy of
Isaiah, "He was led as a lamb to the slaughter." "Of whom speaketh the
prophet this? of himself, or of some other?" "And Philip opened his
mouth, and preached unto him _Jesus._" Our modern critics call this an
unwarranted interpretation, because Isaiah had no knowledge of Christ.
And yet, John tells us that "Isaiah saw his glory, and spake of him."
The critics contradict John again, when they say that we must put no
meaning into Isaiah's words but that of his own time. His great prophecy
of a suffering Messiah, they say, had reference only to Jehoiachin, the
captive king of Judah, or to the whole Jewish nation as the afflicted
people of God. Philip and the critics are evidently at variance. If we
accept their method, we shall lose all reference in the Old Testament to
the atonement of Christ, and all proof that the sacrifice on Calvary was
that of "the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world."
Reverse the process, and we can still say,
The Holy, meek, unspotted Lamb,
Who from the Father's bosom came
For me and for my sins to atone,
Him for my Lord and God I own.
It is needless to multiply instances of this failure to interpret the
Old Testament aright. Let me call attention to the effect of this method
upon the interpretation of the New Testament, for the authority of the
New Testament is also undermined. The system of typical interpretation,
which sees in Christ the reality prefigured in Old Testament shadows, is
discredited as unscientific. The whole Epistle to the Hebrews is thrown
out, as a poetical clothing of "the man of Nazareth" with the fading
glories of an outworn worship. The idea that the high priest of old who
entered the Holy of Holies once a year not without blood, and the whole
Jewish system of which this formed the central feature, were a divinely
ordered prefiguration of Christ's atoning sacrifice for the sins of
men--this idea is called a mere human addition to historical truth.
Christ is no longer our great High Priest. His priesthood is mere
metaphor, without divine warrant or authority. He is not our Prophet,
nor our King, for his prophecies are not fulfilled, and his kingdom is
only that of a moral teacher and example. And all this, in spite of the
fact that the Epistle to the Hebrews bears upon its front the
declaration that "God, who in past times spoke to the fathers through
the prophets, has in these last days spoken through his Son," whom this
same Epistle then proceeds to describe as the effulgence of God's glory
and the very image of his substance, the Creator, Upholder, and
Redeemer of the world, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
I do not undervalue the historical method, when it is kept free from
this agnostic presupposition that only man is the author of Scripture.
This method has given us some information as to the authorship of the
sacred books, and it has in some degree helped in their interpretation.
I am free to acknowledge my own obligation to it. I grant the composite
documentary view of the Pentateuch and of its age-long days of creation,
while I still hold to its substantially Mosaic authorship. I say this,
however, with deference, for a university president of note, when asked
about the stories of Cain and Abel, replied that no such persons in all
probability ever lived, but that the account was still valuable, since
it taught the great moral lesson that it is highly improper for a man to
murder his brother! I grant that there may be more than one Isaiah,
while yet I see in the later Isaiah a continuance of the divine
revelation given through the earlier. Any honest Christian, I would say,
has the right to interpret Jonah and Daniel as allegories, rather than
as histories. I can look upon the book of Job as a drama, while I still
assert that Job was a historical character. I can see in the Song of
Solomon the celebration of a pure human love, while at the same time I
claim that the Song had divinely injected into it the meaning that union
with Christ is the goal and climax of all human passion. In short, I
take the historical method as my servant and not my master; as partially
but not wholly revealing the truth; as showing me, not how man made the
Scripture for himself, but how God made the Scripture through the
imperfect agency of man. So I find _unity_ in the Scriptures, because
they are the work of the omnipresent and omniscient Christ: I find
_sufficiency_ in the Scriptures, because they satisfy every religious
need of the individual and of the church; I find _authority_ in the
Scriptures, because, though coming through man, they are, when taken
together and rightly interpreted, the veritable word of God. I denounce
the historical method, only when it claims to be the solely valid method
of reaching truth, and so, leaves out the primary agency and determining
influence of Christ.
What sort of systematic theology is left us, when the perverted
historical method is made the only clue to the labyrinth of Scripture?
There is but one answer: No such thing as systematic theology is
possible. Science is knowledge, and to have a system you must have
unified knowledge. The historical method so called can see no unity in
Scripture, because it does not carry with it the primary knowledge of
Christ. It simply applies in its investigations the principles of
physical science. Physical science begins with the outward and visible,
not with the inward and spiritual, with matter and not with mind.
Laplace swept the heavens with his telescope, but he said that he
nowhere found a God. He might just as well have swept his kitchen with a
broom, and then complained that he could not find God there. God is not
stars, nor dust. God is spirit, and he is not to be apprehended by the
senses. Laplace should have taken man's conscience and will for his
starting-point. And just as physical science can find no God in the
universe by the use of the forceps and the microscope, so this
historical method can find no Christ in the Scriptures, because it looks
there for only human agency. The result is that it finds only a
collection of seemingly contradictory fragments, with no divine Spirit
to harmonize them and bind them together. Its method is purely
inductive, whereas its induction should always be guided by a knowledge
of Christ, gained before investigation begins, and furnishing the basis
for a deductive process as well. Differentiation and not harmonization
is its rule, and this makes its criticism destructive rather than
constructive. Many a passage is set aside, because it will not fit in
with a skeptical interpretation. Christ's own words with regard to his
being "a ransom for many," and with regard to his having "all power
committed to him in heaven and in earth," are held to be later words
attributed to him by his followers. The whole New Testament story comes
to be regarded as a mythical growth, like that which gradually placed
haloes about the heads of the apostles. The Gospel of John is not
accepted as historical, but is said to be a work of the second century.
Jesus, it is said, never himself claimed to be the Messiah, since it is
only John who reports his saying to the woman of Samaria, "I that speak
unto thee am he." Paul is set aside, as being the author of a rabbinical
theology which has no claim upon us; and that, in spite of Christ's own
declaration that there were many things which he could not teach while
he was here in the flesh, but which he would teach, by his Spirit, after
his resurrection, and ascension.
Prof. Kirsopp Lake, in a recent address before the Harvard Divinity
School, deprecated the use of the term "theology." "Theology," he said,
"presupposes divine revelation, which we do not accept." He proposed the
term "philosophy," as expressive of the aim of the Unitarian school.
This is honest and plain. What shall we say of those who speak of the
"new emphasis" needed in modern theology, when they really mean that the
preaching of the old doctrines of sin and salvation must give place to
"another gospel" of cooperative Christian work? From their neglect to
put any further emphasis upon "the faith once for all delivered to the
saints," we can only infer that, for their structure of doctrine, no
other foundation than philosophy is needed, and that they, like the
Unitarians, no longer accept the fact of a divine revelation. "Other
foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus
Christ," and to lay greater emphasis upon the fruits of Christianity
than upon its roots, is to insult Christ, and ultimately to make
Christianity itself only one of many earth-born religions, powerless
like them either to save the individual soul or to redeem society.
Professor Lake is quite right: If there is no divine revelation, there
can be, not only no systematic theology, but no theology at all.
What is the effect of this method upon our theological seminaries? It is
to deprive the gospel message of all definiteness, and to make
professors and students disseminators of doubts. Many a professor has
found teaching preferable to preaching, because he lacked the initial
Christian experience which gives to preaching its certainty and power.
He chooses the line of least resistance, and becomes in the theological
seminary a blind leader of the blind. Having no system of truth to
teach, he becomes a mere lecturer on the history of doctrine. Having no
key in Christ to the unity of Scripture, he becomes a critic of what he
is pleased to call its fragments, that is, the dissector of a cadaver.
Ask him if he believes in the preexistence, deity, virgin birth,
miracles, atoning death, physical resurrection, omnipresence, and
omnipotence of Christ, and he denies your right to require of him any
statement of his own beliefs. He does not conceive it to be his duty to
furnish his students with any fixed conclusions as to doctrine but only
to aid them in coming to conclusions for themselves. The apostle Paul
was not so reticent. He was not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, but
rather gloried in it. He even pronounced his anathema upon any who
taught other doctrine. It is no wonder that our modern critics cry,
"Back to Christ," for this means, "Away from Paul." The result of such
teaching in our seminaries is that the student, unless he has had a
Pauline experience before he came, has all his early conceptions of
Scripture and of Christian doctrine weakened, has no longer any positive
message to deliver, loses the ardor of his love for Christ, and at his
graduation leaves the seminary, not to become preacher or pastor as he
had once hoped, but to sow his doubts broadcast, as teacher in some
college, as editor of some religious journal, as secretary of some Young
Men's Christian Association, or as agent of some mutual life insurance
company. This method of interpretation switches off upon some side-track
of social service many a young man who otherwise would be a heroic
preacher of the everlasting gospel. The theological seminaries of
almost all our denominations are becoming so infected with this
grievous error, that they are not so much organs of Christ, as they are
organs of Antichrist. This accounts for the rise, all over the land, of
Bible schools, to take the place of the seminaries. The evil is coming
in like a flood, and the Spirit of the Lord will surely raise up a
standard against it. But oh the pity! that money given by godly men to
provide preachers of the gospel should be devoted to undermining the
Christian cause!
What is the effect of this method of interpretation upon the churches of
our denomination? It is to cut the tap-root of their strength, and to
imperil their very existence. Baptist churches are founded upon
Scripture. Their doctrine of regenerate church-membership, and of church
ordinances as belonging only to believers, presupposes an authoritative
rule of faith and practice in the New Testament. In controversy with
other denominations we have always appealed "to the law and to the
testimony," and we have declared that, if other faiths "speak not
according to this word, surely there is no morning for them." We have
held that the authority of Scripture is not an arbitrary authority, but
that the ordinances have so much of meaning that to change their form is
to destroy them altogether. We stand for immersion as the only real
baptism, not because much water is better than little water, but because
baptism is the symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and
the symbol also of our spiritual death, burial, and resurrection with
him. When we are "buried with him in baptism," we show forth his death,
just as we show forth his death in the Lord's Supper. To change the form
of the Lord's Supper so as to leave out all reference to the breaking of
Christ's body and the shedding of his blood, would be to break down one
great visible monument and testimony to Christ's atoning death, and to
destroy the Lord's Supper itself. And to change the form of baptism so
as to leave out its symbolism of Christ's death, burial, and
resurrection, is to break down another great visible monument and
testimony to Christ's essential work, and to destroy the ordinance of
baptism. Only the surrender of belief in the authority of Scripture, and
a consequent ignoring of the meaning of baptism can explain the proposal
to give us our requisition of immersion. The weakness of our
denomination in such cities as New York results from the acceptance of
the method of Scripture interpretation which I have been criticizing. We
are losing our faith in the Bible, and our determination to stand for
its teachings. We are introducing into our ministry men who either never
knew the Lord, or who have lost their faith in him and their love for
him. The unbelief in our seminary teaching is like a blinding mist which
is slowly settling down upon our churches, and is gradually abolishing,
not only all definite views of Christian doctrine, but also all
conviction of duty to "contend earnestly for the faith" of our fathers.
So we are giving up our polity, to please and to join other
denominations. If this were only a lapse in denominationalism, we might
call it a mere change in our ways of expressing faith. But it is a far
more radical evil. It is apostasy from Christ and revolt against his
government. It is refusal to rally to Christ's colors in the great
conflict with error and sin. We are ceasing to be evangelistic as well
as evangelical, and if this downward progress continues, we shall in due
time cease to exist. This is the fate of Unitarianism to-day. We
Baptists must reform, or die.
What is the effect of this method of interpretation upon missions? I
have just come from an extensive tour in mission fields. I have visited
missionaries of several denominations. I have found those missions most
successful which have held to the old gospel and to the polity of the
New Testament. But I have found a growing tendency to depend upon
education, rather than upon evangelism. What would Peter have said on
the day of Pentecost, if you had advised him not to incur the wrath of
the Jews by his preaching, but to establish schools, and to trust to the
gradual enlightenment of the Jewish nation by means of literature? He
might have replied that our Lord made it his first duty to "make
disciples," and only afterwards to "teach them to observe all things
which he had commanded." Christian schools and Christian teaching are
necessary in their place, but they are second, not first. Our lack at
home of the right interpretation of Scripture, and our fading knowledge
in experience of the presence and power of Christ, have gone from us
round the world. Some boards are sending out as missionaries young men
who lack definite views of doctrine. These young men, having nothing
positive to preach, choose rather to teach in the English language, in
schools where English is spoken, rather than preach in the native
language which requires a lifetime of study. When they teach, they
cannot help revealing their mental poverty, and disturbing the simple
faith of their pupils. Having no certainty themselves, they can inspire
no certainty in others, for "if the trumpet gives no certain sound, who
will arm himself for the battle?" These unprepared and inefficient
teachers may become themselves converted through their very sense of
weakness in presence of the towering systems of idolatry and
superstition around them. But if they are not so converted, they will
handicap the mission and paralyze its influence. Some of our best
missionaries have said to me, "The Lord deliver us from such helpers!"
No man has a right to go, and no board has a right to send, as a
missionary, one who has not had such a personal experience of Christ as
will enable him to stand against this unscientific and unchristian
method of Scripture interpretation.