CHAPTER
12
Typology
(The Bible
or the Church?, revised into Chapters. XI and XII, pp. 177-203)
206
ANY one who approaches the study of theology with a mind trained and formed
by full and systematic study of Holy Scripture enjoys an immense advantage
over those who, reversing the process, have been taught to read the Scriptures
in the light of theology. In dealing with the ritualists and sacerdotalists
of apostolic days, the Epistle to the Hebrews attributes their errors
to ignorance of “the first principles of the oracles of God;”[1]
that is, the rudiments of revealed religion, the A B C of the Divine revelation
of the Old Testament. To what extent, then, has the theology of Christendom
fallen under a similar reproach?
[1]
Heb. v. 12.
207
The Old Testament Scriptures admit of a four-fold division—the historical,
the typical, the prophetical, and the devotional or experimental. Of these,
the first and the last—history and spiritual experience—are
not specially the domain of the theologian at all. What then of the others?
It is notorious that theology ignores them altogether. Prophecy it rejects
with deliberate purpose; and as regards typology the dictum of Hengstenberg
still holds good, that “the elucidation of the doctrine of the types,
now entirely neglected, is an important problem for future theologians.”[2]
But in this intensely valuable and interesting study, “now entirely
neglected,” may be found landmarks to guide us in our search
for truth, and safeguards against the errors by which at this moment Christianity
is assailed, and our liberties as Englishmen are endangered.
[2]
“Christology,” (Arnold's edition) §765.
By one school
of theologians the Divine revelation of Judaism is bracketed with old-world
paganism: by others it is dismissed to the sphere of archæology.
But the Mosaic types are the alphabet of the language in which the truths
of
208
Christianity have been delivered to us; or, if the illustration may be
pardoned, the Divine guidebook to the City of God. Without further preface,
then, will the reader bear with a brief excursion into this wonderful
field of inquiry?[3]
[3]
“The elucidation of the doctrine of the types” must not he
confounded with the allegorising of Scripture which renders the exegesis
of the Fathers so fanciful—a
system derived from the Greeks, who had learned to treat their classics
in this way.
Though in a
sense the Bible is a literature, its unity must never be ignored. Regarded
as a book, Genesis constitutes its introduction. Adam
and the history of his world for thousands of years are dismissed in a
brief preface of eleven chapters, and the rest of the Old Testament concerns
itself with Abraham and his race.[4]
The narrative of Genesis closes by recording how the descendants of Abraham
came to be sojourners in the land of Egypt. As we turn the page, the opening
chapter of Exodus describes their condition as one of hard and degrading
servitude. This is the point at which the history of Israel in its typical
character begins. Man's condition by nature is that of
209
slavery in the house of bondage. He is absolutely dependent on a Divine
deliverer.
[4]
Gen. i.-xi. covers chronologically a longer period than all the rest of
the Old Testament.
The narrative
opens, then, by representing the Israelites as the slaves of Pharaoh,
and it proceeds to unfold the story of their deliverance. And here the
essentially typical character of the history is apparent. First,
the fact of their deliverance is made subordinate to its purpose:
“Let my people go, that they may serve Me” was the
Divine demand. And secondly, as the deliverance must be in the way of
redemption, the history leads up to the promulgation of a death
sentence: “All the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die”[5]—the
firstborn being typically the representative of the family. This was not
a sentence upon the Egyptians, but upon the inhabitants of the
land. The doom fell upon Egypt and upon all who dwelt in Egypt. There
was no difference here between the Israelite and the Egyptian. And a death
sentence can be satisfied only by death. But God provided a redemption.
[5]
Exod. xi. 5.
The story
of the Passover is known to all. Every Hebrew family was to sacrifice
a lamb, and
210
the blood of that sacrifice was to be sprinkled upon the lintel and the
door-posts of every Hebrew hut. For the Divine word declared, “I
will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the
firstborn in the land of Egypt... And when I see the blood I will
pass over you.” Or, as Moses explained it to the people, “The
Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come
into your houses to smite you.”[6]
Death was the appointed judgment upon Egypt; but upon the blood-stained
house death had already passed. They were redeemed from death by a death
already accomplished—redeemed by the blood of the paschal lamb.
And that bloodshedding typified the great sacrifice of Calvary: hence
the inspired words—“Redeemed... with the precious blood of
Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.”[7]
[6]
Exod. xii. 12, 13, 23.
[7]
I Pet. i. 18, 19.
But this was
merely redemption from Egypt's doom. Redemption from Egypt's bondage was
to follow. But let us keep clearly in view the moral order of it; for
this is a truth which theology has mystified, if it has not lost. Who
211
is there who has not pictured to himself that midnight scene when the
Egyptians “rose up in the night,” and “there was a great
cry in Egypt”—a nation lamenting its dead! And that same night
the Hebrew slaves arose as freemen, and set out upon their march to the
promised land.[8] The redemption
in Egypt was followed by redemption from Egypt. The
sinner is saved in his sins; but that is not all: he is saved
from his sins. Israel's redemption in Egypt was only and altogether
by the blood of the lamb: redemption from Egypt was by “the strong
hand and the outstretched arm” of Israel's God.
[8]
Two words in passing on Exod. xii. Ignorance raises a moral difficulty
on vers. 35, 36, and sees a blunder in ver. 40. The Israelites did not
“borrow”—did not steal—from the Egyptians.
But being urged with importunity to hasten their departure (ver. 33) they
pleaded poverty, and asked for clothing and bullion; and the
Egyptians “let them have what they asked for” (see R.V.).
Then
as to ver. 40. The error alluded to depends on reading it as averring
that the Israelites were 430 years in Egypt. “The sojourning
of the children of Israel” (reckoned from the date of the covenant
with Abraham until the Exodus) “was 430 years.” The words
“who dwelt in Egypt” are a Hebraism; as are also the words
“they shall afflict them” in Gen. xv. 13. The former words
are merely a parenthetical description, further defining the people of
Israel; the latter are equivalent to “they shall be afflicted.”
This is obvious, because ver. 16 definitely states that the sojourn in
Egypt was to last only for four generations; which was exactly fulfilled,
for Moses' mother was a daughter of Levi.
212
The passage of the Sea was the first event in that wonderful journey.
“The waters were divided,” and the redeemed people passed
through as on dry land. But when the Egyptians pressed after them, the
waters returned and overwhelmed them.[9]
The people had already been taught the atoning efficacy of death: they
had now to learn its separating power. Death rolled between them and the
scene of their bondage. Death to sin is no mere theory of doctrine; it
is a great fact in the Christian's heart and life.
[9]
Exod. xiv. 21-28.
Now, these
things, we are expressly told, were “types.”[10]
And, as a matter of fact, the crucifixion of Christ took place upon the
anniversary of the Exodus; and “that self-same day” was again
the anniversary of the covenant with Abraham.[11]
The resurrection therefore was on the anniversary of the passage of the
Red Sea; as that again was on the anniversary of the resting of the ark
on Ararat.[12] Every part of the
wonderful story, indeed, is rich in typical teaching. The manna
213
from heaven for their food was a type of Christ. The rock that gave out
water for their thirst was a type of Christ. God is not a mere turnkey
who releases us from the prison-house of sin: the Christian learns to
say of Him, “The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want.”
[10]
I Cor. x. 6 (tuvpoi).
[11]
Exod. xii. 41.
[12]
Gen. viii. 4. On this whole question I would refer to “The Coming
Prince,” p. 118.
But passing
by all this, the events of Sinai claim special notice here. Then it was
that the law was given—not the ten commandments merely, but the
ritual of the national worship; not till then was it that the covenant
was dedicated. At this point the typology of Exodus becomes of transcendent
importance in delivering us from the errors and superstitions of the religion
of Christendom. For the 24th chapter of Exodus, which fills so large a
place in the doctrinal teaching of the New Testament, is practically ignored
in the theology of Christendom.
A few weeks
only had passed since the Israelites had groaned in Egyptian bondage:
now they stood a redeemed people around Mount Sinai, and God had given
them a law, and prescribed for them a religion. But while His purpose
was to have His people near Him, the
214
scene only emphasised the distance which separated them from Him. Great
and wonderful though the blessings were which they had already proved,
their redemption was wholly incomplete. Moses, indeed, could approach,
but this was only because of his typical position as mediator of the covenant.
As for the rest, not even the elders of Israel, not even Aaron, could
stand in that awful presence. The Divine command was clear: “Moses
alone shall come near the Lord; but they shall not come nigh, neither
shall the people go up with him.”[13]
[13]
Exod. xxiv. 2.
When Moses
had thus received “all the words of the Lord and all the judgments,”
he came and told them to the people, and then recorded them in writing.[14]
This accomplished, he set up an altar, and the great sacrifice of the
covenant was offered; and by the blood of that sacrifice, sprinkled both
upon the book and upon the people, the covenant was dedicated. In other
words, Israel was thus brought into covenant with God, and became a holy
people, as befitted the relationship.
[14]
Exod. xxiv. 3.
215
And now mark the change. THEN (the next verse records) went up Moses and
Aaron and his sons, and the elders of Israel, “and they saw the
God of Israel.” The very same men who had been warned off the mountain
at the peril of their lives were now bidden to participate in its most
dread solemnities. And, as expressive of the fulness of their welcome,
and of the peace which ruled their hearts in that holy presence, the word
records that “they saw God, and did eat and drink.[15]
And the very first command which followed this amazing transformation
was, “Let them make Me a sanctuary that I may dwell among them.”[16]
And then, and not till then, there followed the consecration of the priest.[17]
God, whose care it had been to keep the people at a distance—He
could not suffer them to approach Him—was able now, in virtue of
the blood of the covenant, to “dwell among them.”
[15]
Exod. xxiv. 9-11; Cf. ver. 2 and xix. 12, 21, 24.
[16]
Exod. xxv. 8.
[17]
Exod. xxviii.
But, some one
will ask, What possible difference could the blood of a dead calf make
in the moral or spiritual condition of the Israelites? The
216
answer is, Absolutely none. It was the stupid error of the Jewish
ritualists to suppose that such ordinances were anything but mere shadows
of spiritual realities. Then, it will be demanded, if we have the reality,
why should we go back to the type? The answer is, Because, owing to the
neglect of the type, Christendom has lost the knowledge of the reality.
The theology of Christendom insists that the ministry of a priest is needed
to enable us to gain this position of nearness to God. The theology of
Christendom is thus characterised by ignorance of “the first principles
of the oracles of God.” It was not until redemption in all its completeness
had been accomplished that the priest was consecrated. Priesthood had
no part in obtaining redemption: that was the work, not of Aaron, but
of Moses; not of the priest, but of the mediator. The great redemption
sacrifices, offered once for all, and never to be repeated, to which Israel
owed the position of a saved and covenant people, were not priestly offerings
at all.
Repetition
may be pardoned here, because the truth in question is outraged and denied
by the
217
Pagan conception of priesthood, which prevails in Christendom. The moral
order of these types is clear. The deliverance of Israel by the blood
of the Passover was accomplished in Egypt—in the very scene
of their bondage: God saves the sinner in his sins—as he
is, and where he is. Then the Israelites were delivered out of Egypt,
and permitted to see the destruction of the power which had held them
in servitude: God saves the sinner from his sins, and teaches
him that sin has no longer the power to enslave him. Finally, the Israelites
were brought near to God as a holy people, through “the blood of
the covenant,” and taught to be at peace in His holy presence: “But
now” (we read) “in Christ Jesus, ye who once were far off
are made nigh by the blood of Christ; for He is our peace.”[18]
[18]
Eph. ii. 13, 14.
And all this
apart from priesthood. Where, then, did the priest come in? Not, I repeat,
until redemption was complete, and the tabernacle—the dwelling-place
of Jehovah—was set up. Then, and only then, the priest was consecrated.[19]
His functions had to do with the worship of the people.
218
But the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews is clear and emphatic,
that the repetition of the sacrifices in Israel was due to the
fact that those sacrifices were but “a shadow of good things to
come.” They could not “take away sins;” therefore they
could not “make the comers thereunto perfect.” “Else
would they not have ceased to be offered?”[20]
But what they could not do, Christ has done. “He appeared to
put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” And this He has
actually accomplished. “For by one offering He hath perfected for
ever them that are sanctified.” And therefore the language of the
new covenant is, “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.”
And the words which immediately follow declare, “Now, where remission
of these is there is no more offering for sin.”
[19]
Exod. xxviii.
[20]
Heb. x. 1-4.
The types teach
in part by comparison, in part by contrast. While the continually repeated
sacrifices of the law were a Divine protest and warning that sin was not
actually put away, the great redemption sacrifices, offered once for all,
foreshadowed the accomplishment of the Divine will on Calvary.
219
What those sacrifices prefigured, Christ has actually accomplished. What
those sacrifices were in type, He is in reality. To the sinner who believes
on Him He is, in fact, what the Passover and the burnt-offering of the
covenant were to the Israelite in type—“both righteousness
and sanctification, even redemption.”[21]
[21]
I Cor. i. 30. Why should the te kai; be ignored?
And surely the second kai; must be epexegetical.
Redemption includes both righteousness and sanctification: it is not an
added benefit distinct from them.
And as it was
in the type, so it is here. Redemption being now complete, the exhortation
which immediately follows is “Let us draw near.” This is the
climax of the doctrinal teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The purpose
of that Epistle is not to teach how a sinner can be redeemed. Redemption
is assumed. The Passover has no place in the doctrine of it. That
is past; and it is to the great burnt-offering of the covenant that the
opening words of the Epistle refer. Just as Moses made purification of
sins, and then went up to God, so also did the Lord Jesus Christ.[22]
And the teaching of the
220
Epistle, pursued with many a digression, due to prevailing ignorance and
error, is that there is now no need for further offering or sacrifice,
no need for a human priest; but that, in virtue of the great sacrifice
and of what Christ is to the redeemed sinner, there is access even to
the Divine presence.[23]
[22]
“The Son... when He had made purification of sins, sat down on the
right hand of the Majesty on high” (Heb. i. 3, R.V.). The Epistle
thus begins, not at Exod. xii., but at Exod. xxiv., the references to
which abound throughout (see especially chaps. viii.; ix. 19; xii. 18-29;
xiii. 20, 21). This is also the type referred to in I Pet. i. 2.
[23]
The clause beginning ch. x. 26 is used against this truth. I content myself
by giving Dean Alford's comment upon it, as follows:—
“The sin meant is sufficiently defined by the connection with the
preceding exhortations, and by the description of one who has so sinned,
in ver. 29... It is the sin of apostasy from Christ back to the state
which preceded the reception of Christ, viz., Judaism. This is the ground
sin of all other sins. Notice the present, not the aorist participle.
'If we be found wilfully sinning,' not 'if we have wilfully sinned,' at
that Day. It is not of an act, or of any number of acts of sin, that the
writer is speaking, which might be repented of and blotted out; but of
a state of sin in which a man is found when that day shall come.”
At this point
the type becomes confused. The Divine intention was that the mediator
of the covenant should himself become the priest. But this failed, owing
to the unbelief and willfulness of Moses, who claimed to have Aaron associated
221
with him.[24] But Christ is both
Mediator and Priest. And His priesthood is of the order of Melchisedek,
whose ministry was not to sacrifice for sins, but to succour and bless.[25]
It began therefore, not with Calvary, but with His ascension to the right
hand of God. Then it was that He was “named of God a priest.”
Save in the sense in which every Christian is a priest, there can be no
priest on earth apart from the family of Aaron. This rule is so absolute
that it applies even to Christ Himself. As the Epistle to the Hebrews
emphatically declares, “If He were on earth He would not be
a priest at all.”[26]
If any one therefore claims to be a priest, we know he must be a Pagan
priest.[27] A Christian
priest! A man might as well call himself a Christian atheist. It was not
due to narrow intolerance, but to appreciation of truth, that the Reformers
described the sacrifice of the Mass as not merely a “fable,”
but a “blasphemous fable.”[28]
[24]
Exod. iv. 10-16.
[25]
Gen. xiv. 18, 19; Heb. v. 10; vii. 1-21.
[26]
Chap. viii. 4, R.V.
[27]
I am not speaking here of the Reformers' use of the English word as the
equivalent for “presbyter”—a
most unfortunate use it is.
[28]
Article xxxi.
222
But all this is only for the covenant people, “the Israel of God;”
and men by nature are “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and
strangers from the covenants of promise.[29]
How, then, can the gulf be passed which separates these positions? This
is a question to which practical men may well demand a plain answer. Latin
theology, ignoring Divine grace, points men to priestly mediation and
mystical rites as the appointed means of bringing them within the covenant.
The covenant is thus widened and lowered to reach men in their natural
condition. Here, for example, is the opening sentence of the treatise
on “Apostolic Succession,” already referred to: “Jesus
Christ founded a visible society, which, as embodying God's new covenant
with men and representing His goodwill towards them, was intended to embrace
all mankind.”[30] This amazing
statement, so pregnant with error and yet so “orthodox,” merits
close attention and careful analysis.[31]
It tells us:—
223
(1) That
Jesus Christ founded a Church. (Not the Lord Jesus Christ;
but “Jesus Christ,” the Buddha of Christendom–the
dead Buddha.)
(2) That
the Church embodies God’s new covenant.
(3) That
the new covenant is with men, i.e., with the Adamic
race.
(4) That
the Church therefore represents His goodwill towards men; and this being
so,
(5) That
the Church was intended to embrace all mankind.
[29]
Eph. ii. 12.
[30]
“The Church and the Ministry,” chap. ii. (see Chapter
VII. ante.).
[31]
The statement is not quoted from some newspaper report of an extempore
address. It is the formal thesis of Canon Gore's argument in a work to
which, long years after its publication, he appealed (in the Preface to
“The Mission of the Church”) as an end of controversy on this
subject. And the author was then the head of a famous theological college;
and this is the sort of teaching that theological students receive in
such colleges to-day.
These propositions display
the hopeless confusion which Latin theology makes between the Church and
the Kingdom—the Church of this dispensation, and the Kingdom which
was preached in the early period of the Lord’s earthly ministry,
and which will again be preached hereafter, when Israel is restored to
Divine favour. The very word ejkklesia refutes
the error. The Church is not the
224
world christianised, but an election out of the world. In these days it
may seem hypercritical to distinguish thus between the Church and the
Kingdom; but it was this blind and wicked ignorance which led the historic
Church to burn the martyrs.[32]
[32]
See Matt. xiii. 41.
God was on
the side of the martyrs; the devil was on the side of the Church and its
theology. And yet we are told that the Church represents the goodwill
of God towards men! If it were so, we might well pray to be delivered
from His goodwill! In view of the Church's actual history, the statement
is an insult to our intelligence. And, whatever the Church's history,
to put it thus in the place of Christ is an outrage upon Divine truth,
and a hall-mark of apostasy. “IN THIS was manifested the love of
God toward us, that God sent His only-begotten Son into the world, that
we might live through Him.”[33]
[33]
I John iv. 9.
Underlying
all this is the fiction of salvation through a covenant made with men
as men—an error from which acquaintance with “the first principles
of the oracles of God” (to quote Hebrews
225
again) would guard us. The covenant, as we have seen, was made with a
people already redeemed and saved. Here is the truth which underlies Calvinism.
“The new covenant” is not for the race of Adam, but for “the
seed of Abraham,” “the house of Israel”[34]
—not “Israel after the flesh,” but “the
Israel of God.”
[34]
Heb. ii. 16; viii. 8.
But this only
brings us back to the question, How can we, who by nature are estranged
from the covenant, be brought within the covenant?[35]
The answer is to be found in the great characteristic truth of Christianity,
the forgotten truth of Grace—a truth which has dropped out of all
human theologies. Men are ready to believe in Divine benevolence to a
favoured class. The popular description of this class would be that of
good, religious people. The Calvinist would define it
226
as the elect; the sacerdotalist, as the sacramentally initiated. But all
alike, whether the sham priest, the theologian, or the man in the street,
agree in setting limits to the Divine benevolence.
[35]
Some who are teachers of the teachers of Christianity, in ignorance of
the very alphabet of the language in which the New Testament is written
(namely, the typology of the Old Testament), note the difference between
Matt. xxvi. 28 and I Cor. xi. 25 as an “inaccuracy.” Its significance
is that whereas the Jew reached Christ in virtue of the covenant, the
Gentile becomes a partaker of the covenant in virtue of union with Christ.
In the one, therefore, it is, “This is My blood of the new covenant;”
in the other, “This is the new covenant in My blood.”
And this, in
fact, characterised the Old Testament revelation on the public side of
it. And the same is true even of the Lord's earthly ministry. Hence such
words as, “Salvation is of the Jews;” “I am not sent
but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” He was Israel's Messiah,
“a minister of the circumcision.”[36]
But the ministry and death of Christ were infinitely more than this. They
were the supreme revelation of Divine love to a lost world. In the estimation
of Christendom, the crucifixion of Christ was merely an event in history,
the greatest of all events perhaps—what the Exodus was to Israel—the
basis of religion and the beginning of a new era. But in fact it was the
world's “crisis.”[37]
And
227
it was this because it was the supreme manifestation of Divine love to
man, and of man's hatred to God. “God so loved the world that He
gave His only-begotten Son:” man so hated God that he crucified
His only-begotten Son. The Jew has thus lost the position of religious
privilege under the covenant. Every covenant has been broken, every promise
forfeited. Man's probation has closed: he is shut up to wrath, and there
is no appeal and no escape. The whole world has become guilty before God.[38]
Nothing remains but the day of judgment.
[36]
Rom. xv. 8. This characterised also the special testimony of the transitional
Pentecostal dispensation, as unfolded in the Acts of the Apostles. But
a discussion of this here would involve a prolonged digression. I have
dealt with it in “The Silence of God,”
[37]
krivsi~, John xii. 31.
[38]
Rom. iii. 19.
But this was
made the occasion for “the revelation of a mystery which was kept
secret since the world began”[39]
—the great “mystery” of Grace in the Gospel. To
the Son the Father has assigned the Divine prerogative of judgment;[40]
and His own throne is a throne of judgment.[41]
But judgment is postponed. The only Being in the universe who can condemn
a sinner is the Crucified of Calvary, and He is now sitting on the throne
of God as a SAVIOUR. When the day of judgment comes
228
He will be only a judge; but in this day of grace He is only a Saviour.
It is not that there is grace for the elect, or the good, or the sacramentally
initiated; but that grace is the principle on which God is dealing with
a lost world. Grace is supreme. “Grace reigns, through
righteousness, unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord.”[42]
[39]
Rom. xvi. 25.
[40]
John v. 22.
[41]
Matt. xxv. 31.
[42]
Rom. v. 21.
The Epistle
to the Hebrews is given to teach us how a redeemed sinner can draw near
to God as a worshipper, in virtue of the blood of the covenant, with a
great Priest to bless and succour him. So the Epistle to the Romans is
given to teach how a lost sinner can be saved, and reach the place where
alone worship is possible, and the need of a priest arises. The one begins
with the burnt-offerings and peace-offerings of the covenant; the other
with the Passover in Egypt.[43]
But it is the full display of that which the Passover prefigured but dimly.
The Gospel has revealed God, but it has not changed Him. Grace there always
was, but it was veiled.
[43]
Hebrews begins doctrinally at Exod. xxiv.; Romans at Exod. xii.
The distinction
here made is one that ordinary
229
intelligence can grasp. Grace may lead a man to write a money bill, or
to adopt a child; but it is not grace that makes him meet the bill when
due, or support the child he has adopted. Promise, covenant, relationship,
and the obligations arising from them, oust grace altogether. In the Old
Testament story, once God took up the Hebrews as His favoured people there
was no longer room for the display of grace. But when that people
became the betrayers and murderers of Christ, when the Cross stood between
an outraged God and a guilty and doomed world, then the only possible
alternatives were grace and judgment. God must either deal with men according
to their deserts, or else, in infinite mercy and love, pardon and bless
them in spite of all.
And this, and
nothing less than this, is “the Gospel of the grace of God.”
“God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that
the world through Him might be saved.”[44]
“By grace
230
are ye saved, through faith, and that (salvation) not of yourselves, it
is the gift of God; not of works, lest any one should boast.”[45]
“The wages of sin is death” (that is what men have earned)
“but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”[46]
A gift may be deserved, but these words are a climax of an argument in
which it is emphatically called “the gift by grace.”[47]
[44]
John iii. 16, 17.
[45]
Eph. ii. 8-9. The gender of tou'to, though
not conclusive, points to the conclusion that the gift of God here is
not faith but the main subject of the passage, i.e., salvation.
And this is clearly established by the words which follow, for they would
be wholly irrelevant if referred to faith.
[46]
Rom. vi. 23, R.V.
[47]
Rom. v. 15.
This will not
be found in the newspapers. Neither will men believe it. The religion
of Christendom is a systematised denial of it. But human religion has
always been anti-Christian. The Lord Jesus Christ preached the Gospel
to sinners, and “the common people heard Him gladly,” for
they owned that they were sinners; but the religious people retaliated
by crucifying Him. And when His Apostle, addressing his co-religionists,
announced that he had been commissioned to preach this gospel to the heathen,
231
they flew into a frenzy of passion, cast off their clothes, threw dust
into the air, and shouted, “Away with such a fellow from the earth;
it is not fit that he should live.[48]
He had not, like some of his “successors,” committed odious
crimes; he had only preached forgiveness to common sinners in their sins,
not through religion, but through Christ. And if this preaching excited
fury in the days of real priests with real altars, need we wonder at opposition
to it in these days of sham priests with sham altars! Theirs is the religion
of the Buddha of Christendom, which, like a pirate, holds the tortuous
channel of salvation by ordinances; while Divine grace has cleared the
way right out into the open sea.
[48]
Acts xxii. 22, 23.
This doctrine
is met by the profane taunt that it makes every one “his own absolver,”
and tends to levity and sin. But, in fact, it is “the truth which
is according to godliness.”[49]
Writing to men who were converts from paganism, the Apostle declared that
everywhere it brought forth fruit, even from the day they “heard
and knew the grace of God in truth.”[50]
This Gospel changed Onesimus,
232
a runaway slave who robbed his master, into a “profitable”
servant and a “faithful and beloved brother.”[51]
For grace not merely saves a man, but moulds his character, and controls
his conduct. “For” (we read) “the grace of God hath
appeared, salvation-bringing to all men, instructing us, to the intent
that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly and
righteously and godly in this present world.”[52]
[49]
Titus i. 1.
[50]
CoI. i. 6.
[51]
Col. iv. 9; Philemon 11, 16.
[52]
Titus ii. 11, 12. I venture to render swthvrio~
by “salvation-bringing.” Of course “ungodly men”
may “turn the grace of our God into lasciviousness.” Indeed,
any gospel which cannot be thus perverted is thereby proved not to be
the gospel of grace, but a counterfeit.
“Love
your enemies and do them good,” said the Lord to His disciples,”
and ye shall be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the unthankful
and to the evil.”
Is this true?
Or is the prevailing belief well founded, that Divine benevolence is for
those who give proof in some way that they deserve it, or who have by
religious ordinances attained some vantage ground of favour? No one can
pretend to be indifferent upon such a question, for the issues at
233
stake are of overwhelming interest and importance. If the popular belief
be false—if the words of Holy Writ be true—then even one who
may hitherto have led a godless life, ignoring alike the claims and the
benefits of Christianity, is nevertheless an object of Divine pity and
love, and may cast himself upon God with the certainty of being accepted
and forgiven. “For He is kind to the unthankful and to the evil.”
*
* *
The
preceding chapter was taken from:
THE BUDDHA OF CHRISTENDOM (revised and republished in 1908 as The
Bible or the Church?)
by Sir Robert Anderson.
Published by Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1899.
No copyright. Public domain.
The Buddha of Christendom, Chapter 13
Top
|
