THE HERALD
of Christ's Kingdom
VOL.
LI. March/April 1968 No. 2
Table of Contents
The Memorial
Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead?
Daniel's Vision of World Governments
Prophetic Periods
Israel Today
The Question Box
The Ecumenical Movement Threatens Protestantism
Notice of Postponement of Annual Meeting
Recently Deceased
"This do in remembrance
of me." - Luke 22:19.
ALL
Christians should commemorate with deep devotion the anniversary of our
Lord's death.' To those who have been taught the deep things of God there is
more than the remembrance of this event, there is a wondrous privilege.*
-----------------------------
* The
14th of Nisan this year, as previously announced, falls on Thursday, April 11,
beginning at sundown, at which time it is appropriate to keep the Memorial . - Ed. Com.
An
important event in the history of the Israelites was memorialized by some
outward ceremony or ritual. This was intended to deepen the impression and to
prevent the occurrence from fading from the memory. Too often and too soon the
freshness of an experience fades from the mind. For this reason God saw the
necessity for constant reminders by outward observance to instill in the minds
of the people any prominent feature of his eternal purpose.
THE PASSOVER AS A MEMORIAL
The
feast of the Passover was instituted on such a basis. Here was a mighty and
most striking deliverance of God's people by God's power. They must not forget
it (Exodus 12:24). An annual ceremony must be established. Thus was the feast
of the Passover most carefully outlined by the Creator, together with specific instructions
that it should be perpetuated.
Obviously,
as time passed this feast became a reminder only of some act in remote history.
But always linked with this reminder was the name of Jehovah - his greatness
and his watchful care for his own. Jehovah's name and his greatness were
inseparable from this feast.
"I
am the Lord thy God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt: open thy mouth
wide, and I will fill it."
This
and similar exhortations were "that they might observe his statutes and
keep his laws" (Psa. 105:45).
With
God there is no hidden future -- all is known to him. He saw his Son Jesus as
the great Passover Lamb. His Plan included that greatest of all deliverances
followed by the blessing of all the families of the earth. The human family was
to be freed from sin and all its concomitants terminating in death. What a
deliverance! Abraham saw it by faith and rejoiced. Joseph, the husband of Mary,
had just a glimpse when he was told by God that the child should be named
Savior.
THE ATTITUDE OF THE DISCIPLES
Jesus
himself knew that he was the great Passover Lamb for the world. He tried to
convey this thought to his disciples but they were so trammeled with earthly
ideas of a kingdom with great pomp, power, and glory that they heeded not his
words. Here is a lesson for us. Are we so attached to the affairs of this life
that we fail to appreciate all that our Heavenly Father would have us know
concerning the Memorial?
When
the disciples inquired of the Master where they were to keep the annual Passover,
he gave them instructions and on the Day of Preparation they had carried out
his orders. No other thought, so far as we can gather, was in their minds but
the partaking of the legal Passover. Jesus had other intentions. He was about
to leave them. He wished to have an intimate, loving, farewell Supper --
something for them to remember; something for them to look forward to. They
were not aware that they were on the threshold of the greatest event in human
history! Illimitable results would follow this act.
Do
we see any parallel today to this? Are we ignorant of what our Heavenly Father
has stated of our relationship to him and to his dear Son? Is it possible that
we see only a reminder of a past event, of the great Gift and the great
Sacrifice? If the Memorial is only a reminder of the past and not a stimulus to
the future, then we are as the disciples at the First Advent.
WHO CAN UNDERSTAND?
We
believe we are nearing the end of this Age. All the called, chosen, and
faithful of the Lord should be enjoying a deeper insight into the meaning and
import of this last meal of our Redeemer with his loved ones. Jesus knew that
his disciples would not be able to understand the deep things that he knew and
had in his mind. But he longed to convey as much as possible at that time.
Symbolism is a powerful means of conveying a profound thought. He must convey
to them the understanding that they were to have a share with him in a great
undertaking to establish his Father's name in the earth, and to have a part in
the great work of blessing all the families of the earth. Further, he must
convey to them the fact that to reign with him they must suffer with him. His
pathway must be their pathway, his suffering must be the precursor of their
suffering; his glory would include their ultimate glorification. No human mind
can grasp this. Only those begotten of God can do so. This act of begettal is
entirely the result of the work of God; consequently, it may be said that only
those to whom the Father reveals the great truth contained in the Memorial can
fully and really enter into its height and depth, its length, and breadth.
JESUS THE PASSOVER LAMB
It
should be understood that the meal partaken of by the Lord and his disciples
was not the Passover Feast, for it was yet the 14th day of Nisan.**
Feast day was the 15th. It is not reasonable to think that Jesus would break
the Law. Luke records that Jesus definitely stated that he would "not eat
thereof." If it was not the Passover Feast, what was it? Jesus saw himself
as the lamb to be slain. Within a few hours he was to die;
therefore he instituted a simple ceremony that would live in their minds
because it was of the deepest significance to them. He was chosen and begotten
of God; they were chosen, and later to be begotten of God. He was the Son of
God; they were chosen and privileged to be sons of God. They were his brethren;
he was their elder Brother. How his heart must have yearned over them! How
great his desire to do all that he could to help them.
-----------------------
**
The Passover lamb was eaten on the 14th; the Feast of the Passover commenced on
the 15th and continued until the 21st.-Ed. Com.
Surely
we can see what a very intimate, family atmosphere must have pervaded that
sacred, very private, but very far-reaching event. He was to leave them; but he
would see them again. A place in heaven he would prepare for them and
eventually spend eternity with them. All that he thought and did for them, he
thinks and does for us.
When
he broke the bread and said, "This is my body which is given for you:
this do in remembrance of me"; and when, after pouring the wine, he
said further: "This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed
for you," he uttered great truths that they did not yet understand.
The word "remembrance" that he used conveys the thought of
"waiting for." What were they to wait for? Soon they would know, and
then they would continue the Memorial feast annually "until he come."
This the faithful followers of the Lord do, and have done for the last
nineteen hundred years. Now our hopes are high, for we are nearing the time for
his glorious return in power; and his first act is to gather together all
those who are the chosen and begotten of his Father. In all conditions and
circumstances, in peril and in danger, in sickness and in health, this simple
feast has been kept.
INCREASED LIGHT
Very
soon our Heavenly Father rewarded the faithful followers of the Lord by giving
a deeper insight into the real significance of the bread and wine. It was the
privilege of that faithful servant Paul to reveal the hidden meaning of the
symbol used at the Lord's last Supper.
There
is no evidence that Jesus ate of the bread or drank of the wine - rather the
words go to show that he would wait for the time of the establishment of the
Kingdom. In simple and expressive language, but with impelling force and
power, the Apostle demonstrates that we enter into that breaking. When we
partake and assimilate the bread, and it becomes part of us, this symbolizes
that we are one with our Head and united to all other members of that Body.
Paul in essence says, here is a mystery kept hid from the ages, that Christ is
not composed of one person but is composed of many, all of whom become one!
Christ is one, but comprises many members (1 Cor. 12:12).
Evidently
the great Apostle found it necessary to give the foundation of his
interpretation of the symbol used in the Memorial and we find him saying,
"For I received of the Lord that which also I delivered to you." Paul
was anxious that his fellow-members should see and know that the partaking of
the emblems was more than a reminder of a sacrificial life and work finished at
Calvary. For him, for them, and similarly for us, it is an entering into a
covenant or agreement with the Lord Jesus and with his Father. Note the words
of Jesus and see what a flood of light is thrown upon them by this
understanding.
"And
I covenant for you, even as my Father has covenanted for me, a Kingdom."
Here
was a loving intimacy, a sweet fellowship that had never before been extended
to members of the human family. Did the disciples appreciate these words when
they were spoken? Have we appreciated them as much in the past as we do now? A
greater knowledge of our loving Heavenly Father, accompanied by a wider experience
of his purpose and way should endear this ceremony to us more and more. Our
relationship to our Heavenly Father and to the Lord should be quickened and
enhanced.
OUR ATTITUDE
Our
Father, at this Memorial season, would have us carefully and prayerfully examine our relationship with him and his
purpose. Frequently we quote, "Now are we sons of God." How have we
become sons? Could we take this relationship of our own volition? Can we
attain to this position by a demonstration of faith or of works?
Is
it a natural growth or development? John declares it to be a privilege or
position given by God (John 1:12). Paul asserts that only those led by the
spirit of God are his sons. To all those who have the assurance of being sons
of God, what an intimate, reverential, homely feeling becomes associated with
the partaking of the feast. Our Heavenly Father has invited us to enter into a
Divine arrangement; he has provided all that is necessary to enable us to keep
ourselves in his love, and guarantees to us that we shall be with him and with
our Lord for ever. How hallowed then is this time of remembrance! How grateful
we should be to him who has kept us from falling and promises to present us
faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy!
OUR PREPARATION
This
knowledge that, by the grace of God, we are in a special relationship to him;
that he has undertaken all on our behalf; that he will never leave us nor
forsake us, will not puff us up. If rightly exercised we shall approach this
Memorial with the deepest gratitude, with the truest humility, and with the
sincerest honesty of heart. "Search me, O God, and know my heart: try
me, and know my thoughts: and see if there be any wicked way in me."
"Cleanse
thou me from secret faults."
"Therefore
if a man purge himself from
these things [dishonoring to God] he will be a vessel unto honor, sanctified,
fit for the Master's use, prepared for every good work."
If
this be the attitude of our hearts toward God; towards this time of the Memorial,
happy will be our lot! Further, if we fully apprehend what our Father has done
for us through the gift of his dear Son, and with faith and with gratitude live
in harmony with his definite promises, how blessed we shall be as we once more
partake of the emblems so lovingly introduced and used by our Head and Elder
Brother.
"For
as often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death
till he come."
-
A. J. Lodge, England
"Why should it be
thought a thing incredible with you,
that God should raise the dead?" - Acts 26:8.
THE
caption of this article is the title of a book by Oscar Cullmann, published a
few years ago by The Epworth Press. According to the author, it "is the
translation of a study already published in Switzerland, of which a summary has
appeared in various French periodicals."
In
his preface, the author goes on to say, "No other publication of mine has
provoked such enthusiasm or such violent hostility.... My critics belong to the
most varied camps."
This
criticism, he indicates, is due to "the contrast, which, out of concern
for the truth, I have found it necessary to draw between the courageous and
joyful primitive Christian hope of the resurrection of the dead and the serene
philosophic expectation of the survival of the immortal soul." This
contrast, however, he insists, is to be seen between the teaching of the New
Testament and that of Plato. There is, he says, "no reason for denying a
radical difference between the Christian expectation of the resurrection of
the dead and the Greek belief in the immortality of the soul. . . . The fact
that later Christianity effected a link between the two beliefs, and that today
the ordinary Christian simply confuses them, has not persuaded me to be silent
about what I, in common with most exegetes, regard as true; and all the more
so, since the link established between the expectation of the 'resurrection of
the dead' and the belief in 'the immortality of the soul,' is not in fact a
link at all, but renunciation of one in favor of the other."
We
congratulate Brother Cullmann on his decision not to be silent on a matter of
such importance, and trust that the Lord will supply him with the necessary
grace to continue witnessing faithfully to this fundamental tenet of the
Christian faith. Would that others might follow his example.
Regular
readers of this journal are informed as to our own views. However, in view of
the fact that in recent months, our Subscription List has been substantially
increased, we take pleasure in submitting below a number of paragraphs on this
and related subjects, condensed from an article written by Charles T. Russell,
in 1895 - seventy-three years ago.
WHAT IS THE SOUL?
According
to the inspired record of man's creation, found in Genesis 2:7, we learn that
the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed [Heb. blew] into
his nostrils the breath [Heb. wind] of life [Heb. "lives,"
plural -- ie., such as was common to all living animals]; and man
became a living soul [i.e., a sentient being]."
The
body was formed first, but it was not a man. It had eyes, but saw nothing;
ears, but heard nothing; a mouth, but spoke nothing; a tongue, but no taste;
nostrils, but no sense of smell; a heart, but it pulsated not; blood, but it
was cold, lifeless; lungs, but they moved not. It was not a man, but a corpse,
an inanimate body.
The
second step in making man was to give vitality to the properly
"formed" and in every way prepared body; and this is described by the
words "blew into his nostrils the breath of life." When a healthy person
has been drowned and animation is wholly suspended, resuscitation has, it is
said, been effected by working the arms and thus the lungs as a bellows, and
gradually establishing the breath in the nostrils. In Adam's case it, of
course, required no labored effort on the part of the Creator to cause the
perfect organism which he had made to breathe the life-giving oxygen of the
atmosphere.
As
the vitalizing breath entered, the lungs expanded, the blood corpuscles were
oxygenized and passed to the heart, whose valves in turn propelled it to every
part of the body, awakening all the prepared, but hitherto dormant, nerves to
sensation and energy. In an instant the energy reached the brain, and thought,
perception, reasoning, looking, touching, smelling, feeling, and tasting
commenced. That which was a lifeless human organism had become a man, a
sentient being: the "living soul" condition mentioned in the text had
been reached. In other words, the term "living soul" means neither
more nor less than the term "sentient being" or "being capable
of sensation, perception." Moreover, even though Adam was perfect in his
organism, it was necessary for him to sustain life by partaking of the
fruits of the trees of life. And when he sinned, God drove him from the garden,
"lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree [plural, trees
or grove] of life, and eat, and live forever [i.e.,
by eating continuously]" (Gen. 3:22).
Our
Redeemer "poured out his soul [being] unto death," he made "his
soul [being] an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:12, 10); and it was the souls
of Adam and his posterity that he thus bought with his precious blood - by
making his soul (being) an offering for sin. Consequently, it is the souls
that are to be awakened, resurrected - not the bodies, which are buried and
which go to dust.
Here
is another common error - many suppose that the bodies buried are to be
restored atom for atom, but, on the contrary, the Apostle declares, "Thou
sowest [in death] not that body which shall be." In the resurrection God
will give to each person (to each soul or sentient being) such a body as he
pleases (1 Cor. 15:37, 38).
As
the bringing together of an organism and the breath of life produced a
sentient being or soul, so the dissolution of these, from any cause, puts an
end to sentient being-stopping thoughts and feelings of every kind. The soul or
sentient being ceases; the body returns to dust as it was; while the spirit or breath
of life returns to God, who imparted it to Adam, and to his race through him
(Eccl. 12:7). It returns to God in the sense that it is no longer amenable to
human control, as in procreation, and can never be recovered except by divine
power. Recognizing this fact, the Lord's instructed ones commit their hope of
future life by resurrection to the Father and to Christ, his now exalted representative
(Luke 23:46; Acts 7:59). So, then, if God had made no provision for man's
ransom and for a resurrection, death would be the end of all hope for humanity
(1 Cor. 15:14-18).
But
God has thus made provision for our re-living; and ever since he made known his
gracious plan, those who speak and write intelligently upon the subject (for
instance, the inspired Scripture writers) as if by common consent, speak of
the unconscious interim between death and the resurrection morning as a
"sleep." Indeed, the illustration is an excellent one; for the
dead will be totally unconscious of the lapse of time, and the moment of
awakening will seem to them like the next moment after the moment of their
dissolution. For instance, we read that speaking of Lazarus' death our Lord
said, "Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, I go that I may awake him
out of sleep." Afterward, because the disciples were slow to
comprehend, he said, "Lazarus is dead" (John 11:14). Were the theory
of consciousness in death correct, is it not remarkable that Lazarus gave no
account of his experience during those four days? None will claim that he was
in a "hell" of torment, for our Lord calls him his
"friend"; and for the same reason if he had been in heavenly bliss
our Lord would not have called him from it, for that would be an unfriendly
act. But as our Lord expressed it, Lazarus slept, and he awakened him to
life, to consciousness, to sentient being, and that as a favor greatly
appreciated by Lazarus and his friends.
The
thought pervades the Scriptures, that we are now in the Night as compared with
the Morning of the resurrection. "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy
cometh in the morning" (Psa. 30:5).
The
Apostles also frequently used this appropriate, hopeful, and peaceful figure of
speech. For instance, Luke says of Stephen, the first martyr, "he fell
asleep"; and in recording Paul's speech at Antioch he used the same
expression, "David . . . fell on sleep" (Acts 7:60; 13:36).
Peter uses the same expression, saying (2 Pet. 3:4), "the fathers fell
asleep." And Paul used it time and again, as the following quotations
show:
"If
her husband be dead [Greek, fall asleep]" (1 Cor. 7:39).
"The
greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep" (1
Cor. 15:6).
"If
there be no resurrection, . . . then they also which are fallen asleep in
Christ are perished" (1 Cor. 15:13-18).
"Christ
is risen from the dead and become the firstfruits of them that slept" (1
Cor. 15:20).
"Behold,
I shew you a mystery; we shall not all sleep" (1 Cor.
15:51).
"I
would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are
asleep" (1 Thess. 4:13).
"Them
[that] sleep in Jesus, will God bring [from, the dead] with [by]
him" (1 Thess. 4:14).
When
the Kingdom, the resurrection time, comes, "we who are alive and remain
unto the presence of the Lord shall not precede them that are
asleep" (1 Thess. 4:15).
They
"fell asleep" in peace, to await the Lord's day-the Day of Christ,
the Millennial Day -- fully "persuaded that he [Christ] is able to keep that
which they committed unto him against that day" (2 Tim. 1:12). This same
thought runs through the Old Testament as well--from the time that God first
preached to Abraham the Gospel of a resurrection. The expression, "He
slept with his fathers," is very common in the Old Testament. But Job puts
the matter in very forcible language, saying, "O that thou wouldest hide
me in the grave, that thou wouldest keep me secret, until thy wrath be [over]
past!" (Job 14:13). The present dying time is the time of God's wrath -
the curse of death being upon all, because of the original
transgression. However, in due time the curse will be lifted and a blessing
will come through the Redeemer to all the families of the earth; and so Job continues: "All the
days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come; [then] thou shalt
call (John 5:25) and I will answer thee: thou wilt have a desire to the work of
thine hands" (Job. 14:14, 15). And we of the New Testament times read our
Lord's response, "all that are in their graves shall hear the voice of the
Son of God [calling them to awake and come to a full knowledge of God and to a full
opportunity of everlasting life]" (John 5:25, 28).
BODY, SOUL, AND SPIRIT
That
the terms body, soul, and spirit are not identical and interchangeable as many
assume is shown in the use of all three terms by the Apostle (1 Thess. 5:23),
when he writes, "I pray God [that] your whole spirit, soul, and body be
preserved blameless, unto the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ." This
prayer must be understood to apply to the Church as a whole - the elect Church
whose names are written in heaven. The true spirit has been preserved in
the little flock. Its body is discernible today also, notwithstanding
the multitudes of tares that would hide as well as choke it. And its soul, its activity, its intelligence,
its sentient being, is in evidence everywhere, lifting up the standard for the
people -- the cross, the ransom.
In
no other way could we apply the Apostle's words; for, however much people may
differ respecting the preservation of the individual spirits and souls of
God's people, all will agree that their bodies have not been preserved, but
have returned to dust, like those of others.
"ALL LIVE UNTO HIM"
Our
Lord in contradicting the Sadducees (who denied that there would be a
resurrection or any future life) said that the resurrection (and hence a
future life) was proved by the fact that God, in speaking to Moses, declared
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Luke 20:37, 38). Our Lord
suggests that this of itself is a proof "that the dead are [to be] raised," because God would
surely not refer thus to beings totally blotted out of existence. Our Lord
then shows that God's plan for a resurrection is fixed, and that those whom men
call "dead" "all live unto Him." God's Word, therefore,
speaks of them as "asleep" and not as destroyed. In saying, "I am
the God of Abraham," etc., he speaks not only of things past as still
present, but also of things to come as if already come to pass (Rom. 4:17).
"'As concerning the rest
of the beasts, they had their dominion taken away;
yet their
lives were prolonged for a season and time." - Daniel 7:12.
The
vision given to Daniel which he records in chapter 7 is of four beasts which,
it was revealed to him, symbolized four kings (Daniel 7:16, 17).
The
following are the leading points of the Vision and of the Interpretation
respectively.
THE VISION
1.
Four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another.
2.
The first like a lion, another like a bear, another like a leopard.
3. A
fourth beast, dreadful, and terrible, and strong exceedingly.
4.
It was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns.
5.
There came up among them another little horn.
6.
In this horn were eyes like the eyes of a man, and a mouth speaking great
things.
7.
The same horn made war with the saints and prevailed against them.
8.
Until the Ancient of Days came, and
9.
Judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and
10.
The time came that the saints possessed the kingdom.
The Interpretation
1.
These great beasts which are four, are four kingdoms.
2.
The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth.
3.
The ten horns are ten kings (or kingdoms) that shall arise.
4.
Another shall arise after them, diverse from the first (ten).
5.
And he shall speak great words against the Most High.
6.
He shall wear out the saints of the Most High;
7.
They shall be given into his hand, until a time, and times, and the dividing of
time.
8.
But the judgment shall sit, and they shall take away his dominion.
9.
The kingdom shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High;
10.
Whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.
Students
of the Scriptures have long understood these beasts to represent the four
world-governments -- the only four mentioned by name in the Word of God --
Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Dan. 2:38; 8:20; 8:21, and Luke 2:1).
These four, as history shows, succeeded each other without any gap and, as the
prophecies show, are to occupy the entire interval from Daniel's day to the
establishment of the Kingdom of God.*
---------------------------
*See
"The ABC of Bible Prophecy" booklet. Free on Request.
The
foregoing is very generally understood. Not so general, however, is the
understanding that the first three beasts continue alive long after they lose
their dominion. Nevertheless this is clear from the language of Daniel 7:12. As
each beast in turn is conquered by its successor, its dominion is taken
away but its life is prolonged.
Just
when the lives of the first three beasts come to an end is not stated. The
implication is that this occurs when both the dominion and the life of the
fourth beast are terminated (Dan. 7:26, 11).
This
view, furthermore, agrees very well with the parallel prophecy recorded in the
second chapter of Daniel. When the stone struck the image in the feet, "then
was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to
pieces together" (Dan. 2:35)
In
Daniel's vision it is probable that these four beasts emerged from the sea one
after another, each in turn being vanquished by its successor. Eventually,
however, all four must have been present to his view at the same time since,
while the dominion of the first three had been taken away, their lives
had been prolonged. How is this distinction between the life and
the dominion of the beasts to be understood, as it relates to the four
world -- empires symbolized?
To
us it seems that there is only one satisfactory explanation. It lies, as has
been pointed out by an able writer, in recognizing "that prophecy regards
the four empires as being as distinct in territory as in time: as
distinct in geographical boundaries, as in chronological limits. They rise in
a definite sequence; the supreme dominion of one does not in point of time overlap
the supreme dominion of the following one, nor is the territory of a
former 'beast' or empire ever regarded as belonging to a later one, though it
may have been actually conquered. Each has its own proper theatre or body, and
the bodies continue to exist after the dominion is taken away. This is
distinctly stated, both in connection with the fourfold image and with the four
beasts. In the first case the stone falls upon the clay and iron feet only, but
the iron legs, the brazen body, the silver breast, and the golden head, are all
by it 'broken to pieces together.' Now the empires represented by
these have long since passed away. They (as universal empires) cannot therefore
be 'broken to pieces' by the Second Advent. But the territory once
occupied by them is still existing and still populous, and exposed to the
judgments of the day of Christ just as much as Rome itself.
"Similarly,
we read that the three earlier beasts did not cease to exist when the
fourth arose. 'Their dominion [was] taken away, yet their lives were
prolonged for a season and time' (Dan. 7:12). That is to say, the first three
empires are regarded as coexisting with the fourth, after their dominion
has ended. This proves that they are regarded as distinct in place as
well as in time. They continue to be recognized as territorial divisions of
the earth after the disappearance of their political supremacy." - H. G.
Guinness.
Many
years before Guinness, this had been clearly seen by the world's great
mathematician, Sir Isaac Newton. In his "Observations on the Prophecies
of Daniel and the Revelation," he wrote: "All the four beasts
are still alive, though the dominion of the first three be taken away. The
nations of Chaldea and Assyria are still the first beast. Those of Media and
Persia are still the second beast. Those of Macedonia, Greece, Thrace, Asia
Minor, Syria, and Egypt are the third beast. And those of Europe on this side
are still the fourth beast. Seeing, therefore, the body of the third beast is
confined to the nations on this side of the river Euphrates, and the body of
the fourth beast to the nations on this side of Greece, we are to look for all
the four heads of this third beast on this side of the Euphrates, and for all
the eleven horns of the fourth beast among the nations on this side Greece; and
therefore, in the breaking up of the Greek empire into four kingdoms, we
include no part of Chaldea, or Media and Persia in these kingdoms, because
they belong to the body of the first two beasts. Nor do we reckon the Greek
empire, seated at Constantinople, among the horns of the fourth beast, because
it belongs to the body of the third."
This
principle of identifying governments not only chronologically but
geographically -- in accordance with the territory originally occupied-is
helpful in reaching a proper understanding not only of this prophecy but of
others. As above noted, it has proven a safe guide in the identification of
the ten horns (or kingdoms) of the fourth beast (or empire) which must
"none of them be sought in the realms of the third, second, or first, but
exclusively in the realm of the fourth, or in the territory peculiar
to Rome, and which had never formed part of the Grecian, Medo-Persian, or
Babylonian empires."
There
is yet one other point which ought to be mentioned ere we close this
discussion. It is this: Not only is each world-government regarded in the
prophecy as distinct in territory and in time; each is shown also as existing
before its predecessor falls. Medo-Persia existed before it
conquered Babylon. Greece came into existence before it challenged and
overcame Medo-Persia. Rome existed before it vanquished Greece. Has
this point any special significance? Indeed it has. It suggests that before the
dominion of Rome is taken away before the beast is slain and its body
given to the burning flame, the fifth world empire comes into existence.
However,
this thought, that the fifth world-empire comes into existence before the
overthrow of the fourth, is more than a suggestion; much more than a strong
probability based on the fact that each of the others is shown as existing
before the fall of its predecessor. It is specifically stated in the
Scripture. It is "in the days" of these kings, not after their
days, that the God of heaven is to set up his Kingdom (Dan. 2:44).
Brethren,
unless we greatly err, the God of heaven has for years been in the process of
setting up this Kingdom. For more than half a century the "judgment has
been sitting" and his dominion (the dominion of the fourth beast in its
"little horn" stage) has been in the process of being taken away.
What yet remains? We answer: "To consume and destroy that dominion unto
the end." Immediately thereafter will occur that which, is described by
the words: "I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed,
and given to the burning flame" (Dan. 7:26; 11). And then? Ah! then-the
Kingdom will be given to One like the Son of Man; and the people of the saints
of the Most High. That Kingdom will not pass to a sixth world-empire. It will
be everlasting (Dan. 7:14, 27).
- P.
L. Read
A
WIDE distinction exists and should be recognized between students and
expositors of the Word
and Works of God, who humbly, soberly, and reverently searching into the
facts of Nature and Scripture, of providence and of prophecy, reach conclusions
which sanctified common sense can approve, -- and speculators, who
running away with isolated and mysterious expressions, indulge in imaginations
of their own, and become prophets, instead of students of Divine
prophecy. No employment of human intelligence is nobler than an adoring
investigation of the revealed purposes of God, "which things the angels
desire to look into," while few are so puerile, as a presumptuous pretense
of predicting the future, apart from such cautious and careful study of Divine
revelation.
In
conclusion, the author would strongly deprecate the false and foolish popular
notion that all study of prophecy is unpractical - a notion too often
propagated by passing, but mischievously influential allusions to the subject
from pulpit, platform, and press, made by those who know little either of it,
or of its effects. It ought to be a sufficient rebuke to the levity that hazards
such an assertion, or admits such an idea, to recall the facts, that one third
of the Bible consists of prophecy; and that our Lord and Master said,
"Search the Scriptures," not a portion of them. The Apostle Peter
expressly tells us that we do well to take heed to the "more sure
word of prophecy," as to a light shining in a dark place until the day
dawn and the day star arise. Is it unpractical to make use of a good lantern on
a pitch-dark night, in traversing a dangerous road? or is it not rather
unpractical and unreasonable to attempt to dispense with it? And further, a
special and emphatic
blessing is attached to this study in the closing book of the Bible:
"Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this
prophecy, and keep the things which are written therein: for the time is at
hand" (Rev. 1:3).
It
is a reflection of the gravest kind on the wisdom of God to suppose that the
study of a branch of truth to which he has in his Word accorded singular
prominence should have an injurious tendency, or be devoid of a directly
sanctifying effect: and moreover, it is a conclusion completely at variance
with all the facts of history and experience. Enoch was a student of prophecy
and of prophecy that is to this day unfulfilled, and Enoch was the saintliest
of men, an eminently holy and practical preacher, who walked with God three
hundred years, and was not, for God took him, and before his translation he had
this testimony, that he pleased God. Noah was a student of unfulfilled
prophecy, and Scripture presents no more practical preacher of righteousness
than he was. All the holy prophets were students, and diligent students, too,
of their own and each other's predictions, and especially of their chronological
predictions. "The
prophets have enquired and searched diligently, . . . searching what, or what
manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should
follow" (1 Pet. 1:10, 11). Daniel was a student of unfulfilled prophecy,
yet he was not only a practical statesman, but a man of singular holiness,
classed with Noah and job as one of the most righteous of men.
There
is everything in the nature of the study to make those who pursue it both
practical and holy. It imbues the mind with the counsels and judgment of God
about the affairs and events of earth; it reveals what shall be, and
thereby lessens the inordinate power of that which is now, bringing the
spirit under the influence of things unseen and eternal, and thereby weakening
that of things seen and temporal. It affords to hope much needed food, lacking
which we must languish and grow feeble; and to faith and love peculiar stimulus
and enjoyment. Without an intelligent acquaintance with the teaching of the
prophetic Word, no man of God is or can be thoroughly furnished to all good
works, for it is part of the "all Scripture" given by inspiration,
and profitable for the purpose of rendering him so.
Perhaps
one reason for the prevailing neglect of prophetic expositions and preaching
will be found on reflection, to lie, not in the fact that it is
unpractical, but rather in the fact that it is so peculiarly practical, that
few have the boldness and courage to face the ridicule, opposition, and contempt
it is sure to incur in the world. Jeremiah lived on the eve and in the crisis
of a day of judgment on the apostate professing people of God. He was
commissioned to deliver prophetic discourses full of denunciations of coming
judgment, and of chronological statements of its proximity and duration. We know what Jeremiah's lot
was, and few are prepared to play his sad and thankless role in society!
So
far from the study and exposition of the prophetic Word being profitless and
vain, we believe it is impossible to estimate the loss sustained by the
Church, or the injury done to the world, by the very general and unjustifiable
neglect of it. Is it not so that where one prophetic discourse is delivered,
ten thousand doctrinal and practical sermons are preached? By what authority
do we thus shelve a line of truth to which Divine wisdom has given such
prominence in Scripture? Is it not our duty to declare "the whole
counsel of God"?
Those who
have carefully looked into this subject, solemnly and with good ground, believe
that the "Word" we are commanded to "preach" is full of
evidence that the long predicted and long delayed judgments on the Papal and
Mohammedan powers, which are not only already begun, but are fast accomplishing
before our eyes, are to issue, and that speedily, in such a burning of
"Babylon the Great," as will light up all Christendom with its lurid glow, -- the
immediate precursor, if it be not the accompaniment, of the glorious advent of
the King of kings. With all earnestness and sobriety of mind they assure their
brethren that it is their deep conviction that this is the testimony of sacred Scripture; yet multitudes of Christian
teachers, without even taking the trouble of examining the subject, still
preach the contrary, or imply it in their preaching; not from well-grounded
convition of its truth, but from educational prejudice, or mere force of
habit. Is this right? Ought not every minister of the word study for himself
the teachings of Scripture, until he is satisfied that he has attained the
truth on this momentous theme?
For
if we are right -- if there be unequivocal proof in the inspired volume,
proof that no previous generation of Christians was in a position to appreciate
as we are, that the day of Christ is at hand -- that the time for evangelizing
the nations, and gathering in the church of the first-born is speedily to
expire--that the long day of grace to the Gentiles is all but over, and that
apostate Christendom, so long spared by the goodness of God, is soon to be cut
off by his righteous severity -- that the mystery of God is all but finished,
and his manifested rule about to be inaugurated -- that the great closing
Armageddon conflict is at hand, and the complete overthrow of the confederated
hosts of evil--if we be right in believing that scarcely a single prophecy in
the whole Bible, relating to events prior to the second advent of Christ
remains unfulfilled -- if we be right, -- then surely every pulpit in
England should be ringing with timely testimony to these truths, -- surely
these solemn and most momentous facts ought not, in the preaching of any of
God's faithful witnesses throughout the world, to be passed by in silence. And
who that has not studied the subject can be in a position to say that we
are not right -- that these things are not so?
May
such a spirit as the Bereans had of old be granted to the Christians of this
generation, that they may diligently search the "more sure word of
prophecy," and draw directly from that sacred fountain the Truth as to
the fast approaching future, which God has graciously revealed.
- From
the preface to the first edition of The Approaching End of the Age,
written by H. Grattan
Guinness, in 1878.
Note to the Reader:
Below we submit the second of two installments
of an article by Arthur W. Kac, M.D., in which he presents what he believes to
be The Truth
About the Israel-Arab Problem, a belief shared by our Directors and Editors.
The first installment of Dr. Kac's article
appeared in our January issue, which will be furnished free, on request. - Ed.
Com.
VI
ARAB HOSTILITY: ITS BASIC CAUSES
1.
Territory.
Arab
hostility does not stem from a need of territory. The tiny state of Israel has
about 8,000 square miles of territory, about the size of the state of New
Jersey. The combined size of Arab lands exceeds 1,700,000 square miles. Large
stretches of Arab lands are underpopulated. What the Arabs need is not land but
to develop the vast territories which they have. The Arabs certainly have no
fear of aggression from Israel judging from the daily hit-and-run raids into
Israel territory which the Arabs have been practicing since the 1949
Armistice.
2.
The refugee problem.
The
moral responsibility for the existence of the Arab refugee problem rests
squarely with the Arab States. Had the Arab States not invaded Palestine in
1948 there would have been no refugees. Not only have the Arab States created
an Arab refugee problem, they have also brought into existence a Jewish refugee
group. About 180,000 Jews were forced to leave Arab countries and were not permitted
to take their possessions with them. The Arab refugees can no more return to
their former homes in Israel than the Jews can return to their former homes in
Arab lands or war ravaged countries of Europe. Within the first four years
since its establishment the tiny State of Israel had to absorb some 700,000
Jewish refugees, most of whom came penniless, which number was about equal to
the number of Arabs made homeless because of the war which the Arab States had
forced upon Israel. If Israel with a territory of 8,000 square miles, half of
which is desert, had absorbed some 700,000 Jewish refugees in the first four
years of its existence, could not the Arab States, whose countries occupy an
area of over 1,700,000 square miles, have absorbed the same number of Arab
refugees? They certainly could, provided they had only a fraction of love for
their people that the Jews have had for theirs.
But
Israel, though occupied with a superhuman task of making room for hundreds of
thousands of her own people, did not remain indifferent to the lot of Arab
refugees. She released the blocked bank accounts of the Arab refugees amounting
to some 15 million dollars. She admitted several thousand Arabs to make it
possible for separated families to become reunited. She granted citizenship to
some 35,000 Arabs who have filtered into the State of Israel. She has expressed
a willingness to pay compensation for lands abandoned by the Arab refugees.
The
refugee issue was not the only area in which Israel showed eagerness to make
concessions. She offered Egypt a road through the Negev to provide her with a
link to Saudi Arabia; she was willing to give Jordan free port facilities in
Haifa; she was ready to sign an agreement with Syria granting to Syrian
fishermen fishing rights in the Sea of Galilee. She accepted the Eric Johnston
plan for the development of the river Jordan jointly with her Arab neighbors.
She offered her full share in the development of the Near East which would
have been of inestimable benefit to the peoples in that region. But to all
these overtures by Israel for peaceful settlement of their differences the Arab
turned a deaf ear. Why?
3.
The Arab States want one thing: the destruction of the State of Israel.
In 1954 the king of Saudi Arabia called upon the Arab
States to destroy the State of Israel even if this would cost the lives of ten
million Arabs. "Israel to the Arab world," he stated, "is like a
cancer to the human body and the only way of remedy is to uproot it just like
a cancer . . ." * On another
occasion the Egyptian military dictator government asserted in a radio
broadcast that "the basic cause of Middle East problems is the existence
of Israel. Any settlement based on the recognition of the continued existence
of Israel cannot be approved by any Arab Government.** "Egypt sees Israel
as a cancer endangering the Arab people. Egypt is the physician who can uproot
this cancer. Egypt does not forget that it is its obligation to take revenge,
and it is mobilizing all its forces in anticipation of the hoped for day." ***
---------------------------
* Quoted in The Sun (Baltimore, Md.), January
10, 1954.
** Quoted in The Sun (Baltimore, Md.), February 12,
1956.
***
Saut El-Arab, the official radio station; quoted in The Jews in the News (P.O.
Box 51, Grand Rapids, Michigan), Winter Edition, 1955-56.
4.
The basic cause of Arab hostility to Israel.
a. Jewish achievements in Israel are a
threat to the ruling classes of the Arab States.
Here
is the testimony of Bartley C. Crum, one of the American members of the Anglo-American
Inquiry on Palestine: "The community of interests of the kings, sheiks,
and effendis in the various Arab lands is unquestionably the main factor
behind the seemingly united front of the Arab states in their fight against
Israel. And in this united front the Arab masses are unprotected. What we have
is a class interest of state rulers, landowners, and officialdom. To them, as
distinct from the multitudes of the Arab peoples, Israel's social and
technical innovations are a threat because they mean lifting the masses from
their ignorance and serfdom." ****
--------------------------------
**** Bartley C. Crum, Behind the
Silken Curtain (Simon and Schuster; New York, 1947), p. 230.
b. Hostility to Israel is a disguised
form of hatred for the West.
When
Richard Crossman, one of the British members of the AngloAmerican Committee of
Inquiry on Palestine, asked Azzam Pasha, Secretary of the Arab League, why he
objects to the Jews returning to Palestine, Azzam Pasha replied: "Our
Brother has gone to Europe and to the West and come back something else. He has
come back a Russified Jew, a Polish Jew, a German Jew, an English Jew. He has come back with
a totally different conception of things, Western and not Eastern." *****
-----------------------------------
*****
Quoted by Richard Crossman, Palestine Mission (Harper and Brothers: New York,
1947), p. 109.
Many
of the other Arab spokesmen who testified before the Anglo-American Committee
of Inquiry expressed the same attitude. "As the roll call of witnesses
continued," Crum declares, "it was evident that their antipathy was
toward Westernism: that was the encroachment they fought. Was this not perhaps
the basic tragedy of the Middle East? Westernism meant higher standards of
living; it meant reduction in infant mortality, in disease, in poverty; it
meant opening the door to some measure of freedom and happiness to the
forgotten men and women of this area of the world. It was this, precisely, to
which our witnesses objected. Most tragic of all, as long as they remained
representatives of a feudal aristocracy which draws its power from its
privileged position, supported by the toil of the Arab masses, they had to
object. I felt that even on the highest intellectual levels here there was no
confidence in democratic processes, and, I am afraid, little understanding of
them." ******
---------------------------
******
Bartley C. Crum, op cit., p. 152.
VII
ISRAEL'S INTERNATIONAL POSITION
The
1949 Armistice was concluded between Israel and the neighboring Arab States
with the approval of the United Nations. To normalize the situation America,
Britain, and France entered into an agreement in 1950 in which they declared
that they will defend either Israel or the Arabs in the event either party
shall attempt to change by force the provisions of the 1949 Armistice. Neither
the Armistice nor the 1950 Tripartite Declaration has prevented Egypt from
blockading Israel's southern port and denying to Israel's ships passage
through the Suez Canal, or the other Arab States from raiding Israel's
territory. In fact, Egypt continued her blockade measures in spite of a
declaration by the United Nations that this is illegal.
Notwithstanding
all these warlike acts and the defiance of the United Nations, the Arab countries
have been supplied with arms by the countries of the Communist bloc and those
of the West. This, in spite of the fact that, as in generally known, the only war which the Arab
governments are interested in is a war with Israel. To a question about United
States military aid to the Arab countries Faris el-Khoury, Syrian Prime
Minister, made the following statement: "Why should we hesitate even if
the arms are given only on condition that they are not used for aggressive
purposes? American arms should be accepted and Israel should be attacked with
them at a propitious hour." ******* On the other hand, Israel's repeated
requests to purchase arms from the West have often been denied.
-------------------------------
*******
Israel Digest
(Israel Office of Information: New York), Jan. 7, 1955.
VIII
THE VALUE OF ARAB MILITARY ALLIANCES
Of
what real military value is an alliance between the West and the Arab States in
their present condition? Edgar A. Mowrer once said: "Except for the
American-backed Turks and the Palestine Jews, there is nothing in the Middle
East that could resist a Soviet cavalry raid, still less a tank column."
******** That this still holds true today is agreed by competent observers of
the Middle East.
---------------------------------------
********
Edgar A. Mowrer, op. cit., p. 106.
In
assessing the military value of the Arab States it is necessary to know a few
basic facts about the Arab States. While in form of government they range all
the way from a feudal monarchy, to a constitutional monarchy, to a republic,
they have one thing in common-that the bulk of their peoples have no voice or
share in the government. If the Arabs are ever going to do any fighting, it
will have to be done by the peasants who form the great mass of the Arab peoples.
And Arab peasants are the most wretched lot of people to be found anywhere in
the world today. Most of them do not own any land, or enough to provide them
with even a meager livelihood. Most of them are illiterate, undernourished and
submerged in abject poverty. Morris Hindus, who has made a spot study of the
situation in the Middle East, has this to say: "It is not the eloquent
spokesman of the newly inflamed nationalism of the Middle East, but the lowly
fellah [peasant], who is the central though voiceless character in the crisis
that has come upon that part of the world. His physical condition alone
deprives him of the first requisite -- soldierly health-for an effective
military
force." *********
------------------------------------
*********
Morris Hindus, In Search of a Future (Doubleday & Co., Inc.: Garden City,
N. Y., 1949), p. 259.
IX
THE MEANING OF ISRAEL FOR THE MIDDLE
EAST
1.
The explosive land problem.
In
her book "Land and Poverty in the Middle East," Doreen Warriner
states the following: "Near starvation, high death rate, soil erosion,
economic exploitation -- this is the pattern of life for the mass of the rural
population in the Middle East. It is a poverty that has no parallel in Europe,
since even clear water is a
luxury." **********
------------------------------
1}
Quoted by Morris Hindus, op. cit., p. 256.
S.
A. Morrison, a student of Middle East affairs says: "Unless there is a
substantial improvement in the condition of the peasant masses, the Middle
East will be ripe for an agrarian revolution. It is a land-hungry area, and the
situation resembles in a dangerous way conditions in Russia prior to the
Revolution of 1917. ***********
---------------------------------
*********** S. A. Morrison, op. cit.,
p. 85.
2.
Israel has the solution.
In
his book "In Search of a Future," Morris Hindus says: "They
[the Jews] have demonstrated that neither the poverty nor the degradation of
the land and of the man who cultivates it is beyond redemption ... However
severe the feud between Jews and Arabs, the accomplishments of the Jewish
colonists offer the Arab world a ready and unfailing blueprint for the
regeneration of their countries -- once, of course, an agrarian reform has
been achieved. The forms of land ownership which the Jews have evolved; the
rotation of crops they have pursued; their tender, almost sacred, devotion to
plants and trees; the acclimatization of new livestock; the importation and
adaptation of new cultures; the incalculable potentialities of cottage
industries; the schemes of cooperative effort, so diverse and so flexible;
never-ceasing search for fresh contrivances with which to tame a sullen nature
and coax out of it hidden and neglected treasures; the mastery of scientific
schemes to conserve and to enrich the soil-in all these performances, the
Jewish colonists have pioneered for a renaissance not only of their own land,
but for all the Middle East." ************ "Had there been no Jews in
Palestine, they would have had to be invented, if only to demonstrate to the
Arab and Iranian leaders and peoples, as well as to the diplomats of the
outside world, what self-help, creatively and energetically directed, can
achieve in backward countries whose lands are as damaged as the health of the
people who cultivate them."**************
--------------------------------------------
************
Morris Hindus, op. cit., pp. 264, 265-6.
*************
Ibid, p. 265.
T.
E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia of World War One days, and a
great friend of the Arab peoples, said this: "I am decidedly in favor of
Zionism. Indeed, I look on the Jews as the natural importers of that Western
leaven which is so necessary for the countries of the Middle East.
**************
---------------------------------
**************
Quoted by Batley C. Crum, op. cit., p. 292.
Richard
Crossman, already referred to above, says: "Arab patriotism and Arab
self-respect had been deeply affronted and would continue to be affronted by
the development of the national home [i.e., Jewish National Homeland]; but if I
believed in social progress, I had to admit that the Jews had set going
revolutionary forces in the Middle East, which, in the long run, would benefit
the Arabs." ***************
------------------------------
***************
Richard Crossman, op. cit., p. 167.
Edgar
A. Mowrer, Newspaper Columnist and Foreign Correspondent, said, "Welcome
or unwelcome, it is the Jews who, more even than French or British, have goaded
Egyptians and Arabs into making the effort that alone may one day enable them
to sit among the great peoples-as their ancestors did. ****************
---------------------------
****************
Edgar A. Mowrer, op. cit., p. 102.
Walter
C. Lowdermilk, onetime Assistant Chief of the United States Soil Conservation
Service, states: "I am convinced, after studying the relations of peoples
to their lands in twenty-six different countries, that these colonists have
done something new under the sun; they are working out a lasting adjustment of
a people to their land in which all peoples of the world should be interested.
**************** "It [i.e., Jewish Palestine] is indeed, in my view, the
most significant corner of that entire part of the world, for it is already
serving as a concrete example showing how modern and scientific principles can
be put to work to rejuvenate the entire Middle East and provide a better way of
life and higher standards of living for the long exploited and down-trodden
peasant. *******************
-------------------------------------
*****************
Walter C. Lowdermilk, Problems of the Middle East (Proceedings of a Conference
held at the School of Education, New York University, June 5th-6th, 1947), p.
9.
******************
Ibid. p. 7
Bartley
C. Crum says: "For Palestine represents the power of a collective and
unbreakable moral decision which, short of a massacre of the entire
population, is bound to prevail. I did not fully comprehend the great positive
influences of this moral decision until I had seen the Middle East and
compared the poverty, the disease, and humiliation of Egypt with the
cleanliness, the well-being, and the dignity of the people in Palestine.
******************
-------------------------
******************
Bartley C. Crum, op. cit., p. 290
X
THE CHOICE BEFORE US
In
view of what has been said about the Arab-Israel problem, what policy should we
pursue? "To determine this policy," declares Bartley C. Crum,
"we have one of two paths before us. We can throw our lot with the forces
of reaction who prop up feudalistic regimes in the Arab States . . .; who
believe they can successfully continue the same processes of exploitation in
the future which have proved successful in the past. Or we can throw our lot in
with the progressive forces in the Middle East. We can recognize that there is
a slow rising of its peoples, and that we must place ourselves on the side of
this inevitable development toward literacy, health, and a decent way of life.
I say to my fellow Americans that not only for the sake of the masses of the
Middle East, but for the sake of world peace, we must encourage this
development, a development of which Jewish Palestine is thus far the
outstanding example, holding great promise for the future of all its neighbors.
Therefore, it follows that support for the Jewish National Home is the first
and logical step to take on this path toward the advancement of a democratic
way of life in that area of the world. *******************
--------------------------
******************
lbid, p. 291.
In
our last Question Box (January / February Herald, page 9) we promised if
space permitted, to supplement our Answer to Question 2, with a few additional
paragraphs from the writings of H. Grattan Guinness. These are presented,
under the caption "Prophetic Periods," on page 24 of this issue.
Again,
Question 4 (of the January / February Herald, page 9) related to the
"little horns" of Daniel 7 and 8, a discussion of which was deferred.
Preliminary to the consideration of this question it is necessary to first
review what we have previously suggested was a satisfactory interpretation of
the beasts themselves, on whom the "little horns" were seen, in
vision, by Daniel. For the reasons outlined in the introductory paragraphs of
"The Question Box" in the January-February Herald, we ask the
indulgence of our regular readers, while we bring our new subscribers
up-to-date with the gist of our earlier discussions, in an article captioned
"Daniel's Vision of World Governments." (See page 23 of this issue).
-
P. L. Read
In the current attempts at
church unity, two Baptist ministers see a rising,
frightening new bigotry that endangers religious freedom.
This article by Henry A.
Buchanan (chaplain of the Central Baptist Hospital in Lexington, Ky.) and Bob
W. Brown (pastor of Trinity Baptist Church in Lexington) appeared in the
October 24, 1964, issue of "The Saturday Evening Post" and is used by special
permission of "The
Saturday Evening Post"; copyright 1964 by The Curtis Publishing
Company.
THE
AMERICAN religious system is under fire today. A legacy of the Protestant
Reformation, the system that provides us such a variety of churches is being
challenged and questioned by the suddenly popular ecumenical movement.
Launching a zealous crusade to unite Christendom, the ecumenists have declared
that a divided Body of Christ is a sin and a scandal. In fact, however, it is
the ecumenical movement that presents the real danger. It could lead to creation
of an ecclesiastical power structure that bears no resemblance to anything
envisioned by Jesus of Nazareth. What is worse, in striving after a super
church, we may destroy the heritage of diversity that has enriched our
spiritual life. And still worse, Protestants may be pressured or lured into
creeds and positions that will compromise their religious beliefs.
The
ecumenical movement has been given a tremendous thrust by the Second Vatican
Council and by Rome's overtures to the Orthodox and Protestant communions. Following
the lead of John XXIII, the Vatican Council has held out to the "separated
brethren" a tentative offer of "reunion." An equally powerful
thrust has come from non-Catholic leaders, who entertain the hope that the
church may achieve the unity which would lend authority to their
pronouncements on social issues. Inside American Protestantism, meanwhile,
machinery has been set in motion to unite four major Protestant bodies in this
country -- the Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Methodists and the United
Church of Christ. (The last already represents a union of two churches.) At
the same time a "climate" is being created, through
Protestant-Catholic "dialogue," in which it is hoped that an
agreement can be reached.
With
so much pressure behind the ecumenical movement, one may wonder why the walls
of denominationalism do not crumble into dust immediately. The truth is that
the doctrinal differences represent the honest convictions of sincere men who
do not see alike on basic issues. To expect these men to dissolve their
differences in the heady elixir of church union is to assume that the issues
for which men have suffered and died are not really important, that Luther and
Calvin and Knox and Wesley, and all their spiritual descendants down to this day,
have been haggling over nonessentials. Are we not witnessing in the ecumenical
movement the birth of a new and frightening form of religious bigotry-the
assumption that anyone who holds out for his views is guilty of a perversely
obstinate and un-Christian attitude?
What
about these doctrinal differences that divide Christendom? Can honest men cast
them on the refuse heap for the sake of unity? Does church union really tower
like a Mount Everest over all other doctrines? Will "dialogue"
dissolve disagreement on such basic doctrines as baptism, Lord's Supper,
religious liberty, church government, and the role of the Virgin Mary?
To
illustrate the dilemma, take the Marian controversy. The bishops at the Vatican
Council can divide over such a technicality as whether the mother of Jesus
should be included in the schema on the church or whether she should have a
separate schema of her own. But this does not touch the essential fact that the
Roman Catholic Church has already issued two dogmas concerning Mary which are
rejected by Protestants. In 1854 Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of
Mary's freedom
from original sin the Immaculate Conception -- and in 1950
Pius XII decreed
that Mary had ascended bodily into heaven-the dogma of Assumption.
Will
the Catholic Church decide now that Mary was born, died and was buried like
other women, in order to make Marian dogma acceptable to Protestants? Very
unlikely. Then will Protestants accept Immaculate Conception and Bodily assumption
in order to get back into the church? Apparently they must, if reunion is to
be accomplished. Catholic leaders have implied a willingness on Rome's part to
soften Catholic views on some of the more controversial differences -- but
the more conservative Vatican spokesmen are quick to point out that while new
and more acceptable explanations will be given for the church's positions,
there will be no surrender of what the church has proclaimed as dogma.
Will
"dialogue" dissolve the difference on the meaning, purpose and
method of baptism? Presbyterians and Methodists baptize by sprinkling;
Nazarenes and the Church of Christ baptize by immersion; Roman Catholics
baptize babies for salvation, the Christian churches baptize adults for
salvation, and Baptists do not believe that baptism saves anyone. Can the
various views of the Lord's Supper somehow be reconciled by discussion? To
Lutherans the Communion represents the real presence of Christ, the Baptists
see it as a memorial service and the Roman Catholics believe that it is a means
of acquiring saving grace.
And
what about some of the differences in the way men live? Take birth control,
for instance. The population explosion is a moral issue. Without some sort of
birth control, the increase in population will continue to exceed the increase
in production of food for the already starving millions on the earth. Birth
control is an issue which must be seen in theological perspective. The Roman
Catholic Church has taken the position that the use of artificial means of
contraception is contrary to natural law and is immoral. Many Protestant
theologians hold that the concern for partners in marriage and for the children
must take precedence over concern for the methods used in limiting the size
of the family. The complexity of the population problem indicates the need for
more than one view of the issue. We must not let one church's views dominate.
We need many creative approaches to solve a problem as massive as
overpopulation.
Take
another practical matter: religious liberty. This is a principle for which men
have suffered imprisonment and even death. When the Roman Catholic Church
talks about religious liberty, it is talking about the right to preach and
practice Catholicism in Communist countries such as Poland. But when Baptists
talk about religious freedom, they are talking about equal rights with
Catholics in Spain and Portugal.
What
is the aim of the ecumenists? Protestant ecumenists talk about Catholics and
Protestants reaching out toward each other, and meeting on ground which neither
Catholic nor Protestant can now envision. But let us look at the facts. The Vatican
Council is actually aimed at updating the Roman Catholic Church to meet the
challenges of the present and the future. Roman Catholic theologians are not
talking about a compromise with Protestants. They are talking about
"the return to the one church under the one pontiff" -- the words of
the theological adviser to the Dutch hierarchy at the Second Vatican Council.
Some Catholic theologians do recognize the necessity for changes in the
structure and outward appearance of the church, as is evidenced by the changes
the Vatican Council has approved for the Catholic liturgy. But they solemnly
warn Protestants against hoping for any kind of compromise. Liberal and
conservative Catholic spokesmen disagree as to whether doctrine and teaching authority
can change significantly in the interest of ecumenism, but they agree
completely that reunion could come about only one way: The separated brethren
would have to return to the "one true church" under the successor of
Peter. In the schema on ecumenism offered to the Vatican Council, the
Protestant churches are not recognized as churches at all, but as
"communities." Obviously, to dissolve and absorb these
"Protestant communities" is the aim of Catholic ecumenists.
Many
churchmen who favor a Protestant-Catholic dialogue are deceiving themselves.
Through a dialogue, they seem to believe, differences can be discussed
dispassionately, a common heritage can be shared, and the voice of Christendom
can be heard on current social and moral issues. Advocates of dialogue seem to
feel that the very fact that Protestants and Catholics -- and Jews --have
communicated is just as significant as any conclusions they might reach. This
may be due to the fact that when they are honest they do not come to much
agreement. We must ask whether this is a harmless flirtation which is at test
a waste of time, and at worst an indulgence in self-deception by which the
"broadminded" are being led to accept the basic tenets of ecumenism.
Suppose
that the ecumenical movement should succeed. Suppose that all the churches
unite into one, and that this one church becomes the sole repository of
religious doctrine, the sole arbiter of man's spiritual. destiny. Where will
the discerner, the nonconformist, the individualist go? Where will a man go if
he finds himself at variance with a doctrine or, worse still, the governing
authority of that one church? The ultimate theological implications of the one
church concept are obvious. There would be only one place for the dissenter.
The one church would say he must go to hell.
If
this sounds extreme, then look again at the church in Europe in the years
before the Protestant Reformation, when Christendom was cloaked in a seamless
robe. The pride of the papacy reached its zenith when Hildebrand (Pope Gregory
VII) forced the Emperor Henry IV to stand bare-footed in the snow at Canossa on
17 consecutive days before he would permit him to resume his reign. Rome was
sometimes dissolute, as in the reign of the Borgias, while priests who held a
monopoly on heaven dispensed indulgences for a price. And hanging like a pall
over the whole scene was the stench of human flesh burning, grim reminder of
the heretic's fate.
We
are afraid of a super church, just as we are afraid of a super state, and not
because of a lack of faith in God. What we recognize is the fact that man
cannot be trusted without checks and balances upon his power and authority --
not even in the church. The various branches of Christendom now act as checks
and balances, one upon the other, and they have a purifying effect on each
other. Remove this tension, and we could be back to the pre-Reformation
struggle between church and state with the individual man caught in the middle.
Moreover, each of the branches -- Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Nazarene,
Adventist, whatever it may be -- throws a different ray of light on the Christ
figure in our midst. Each one has a special emphasis and consequently shows our
world another facet of the glory of God who, in His creativity, apparently set
a high value on diversity.
There
are indeed some things that all Christians hold in common. There are also some
essential differences that divide us, and the differences are as important as
those things we hold in common, for they enrich the common heritage. We can see
no valid reason why agreement on the significance of Mary, for example, should
be a test of whether a man is a Christian.
We
must ask ourselves the searching question: What is the real purpose of the
church in the world? Is the church union the goal? Is bigness the end in
itself? Is power the purpose? No, the church is here so that lonely, frightened
men may find a refuge and a friend, that sinful men may find forgiveness and
acceptance, that bruised and crippled men may find healing and strength, that
men who hunger for righteousness may band together to form a more righteous
society, and that men who thirst after godliness may dedicate themselves to a
life of service. If church union would contribute to the achievement of these
ends, then we would be for it. But history teaches us that "the one
church" soon becomes the repository of pride and power and gives very
little attention to the real needs of man.
True,
the Roman Catholic Church is seeking, through the Vatican Council, to reform,
renew and bring itself up to date. But it is questionable whether the reform
movement would happen now if it were not for the "separated brethren"
who have helped to make Rome aware of her own needs. If the "separated
brethren" reunite with Rome, this influence for reform will be
eliminated.
Was
the Protestant Reformation a great mistake? Is the big task before us now the
undoing of the Reformation? What we need to do is not to annul the Reformation
but to complete it.
The
American religious community, in an atmosphere of freedom not experienced
anywhere else in the world, has created a multitude of sects, denominations and
churches. In the struggle for acceptance on the part of the newer sects, and
for continued support on the part of the older, more "respectable"
churches, bitterness and acrimony have often erupted. But the churches have
grown strong in this atmosphere. They have won the loyalty and support of
their adherents, as they have given to individuals something distinctive with
which they could identify themselves. The churches have spurred one another by
criticizing, one another. And they have helped to deliver society itself from
the leveling, deadening effect of a trend. toward conformity. In offering mar.
a choice, a choice between Catholic and Protestant, between Baptist and.
Methodist, between Presbyterial and Pentecostal, between an organized church
and free thought, our pluralistic religious community halt given the individual
man the opportunity and the challenge to follow the Christ who cannot be
confined to any one church nor yet to all
the
churches.
What
we need is not more uniformity but more diversity in which the unlimited grace
of God can find additional channels to reach the needs of men. Instead of one
church under one human and mortal head, we need many churches. We do, indeed,
worship one God, but it is highly unlikely that any one church will exhaust
the wisdom and the wonder of His revelation of Himself to the world.
If
we had no choice? It must never come to that. We must retain the right of
choice. We will not accept the judgment of the ecumenists upon the churches.
The
Annual Meeting of the Pastoral Bible Institute, due to be scheduled for
Saturday, June 1, has been postponed to Saturday, September 28. Plans are now
under way to hold it in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
We
are making this early announcement so that Institute members, who might wish
to participate in conventions now being planned by Associated Bible Students
in various parts of the country to be held during the summer months, will know
that they need not reserve the June date for the Institute's Annual Meeting.
Further
particulars as to the hour and place of meeting will be announced later.
Norman
B. Bartlett, Vida, Mo.
Katherine
L. Brown, Melrose, Mass.
Anna
Chimbles, Chicago, Ill.
Bertram
Cooper, West Covina, Cal.
Jennie
M. Davidson, Des Moines, Iowa
Fred
R. Fader, Moncton, N.B.
Emil
Gronau, New York, N.Y.
Lottie
L. Hastings, Los Angeles, Cal.
Mamie
B. Morris, Brinkley, Ark.
Fred
D. Noeller, Hughson, Cal.
Elwood
K. Snyder, Reading, Pa.
Loverna Wooden, Santa Barbara, Cal
1968
Index
|