ARTICLE XI. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. THE TEACHING OF JESUS CONCERNING HIS OWN MISSION. This little volume is worthy of the close attention of scholars as well as of the general public; for, while designed for the instruction of the rank and file of the church, it is written from such fullness of knowledge of the Bible and of theological discussions, and with such clear understanding of the principles of interpretation applicable to the subject, that it is as well calculated to convince the learned as the unlearned, to whom it is addressed. Altogether it is a fitting tribute to the memory of John Henry Thayer, to whom it is dedicated, whom the author styles "grammarian, lexicographer, and translator of the New Testament, painstaking teacher, accurate and learned exegete, knight without fear and without reproach, faithful friend." The method of the study is to limit the discussion to a proper exposition of Jesus' words. But, as exposition implies a study of the entire environment, the discussion is permitted to take a pretty wide range. First, attention has to be given to the accuracy with which the words of Christ are reported, for it is the reported words of Christ which bring to us our knowledge of his personality. Dr. Foster assumes a position which the advocates of verbal inspiration would find little occasion to criticise: "The Jesus whom we know is the Jesus whom the evangelists portray. We cannot know him apart from their conception of him, for they have given not him, but their conception of him. If the two are different and contradictory, then we can never know Jesus. We must go back to the words of Jesus, if we are to gain the best knowledge of his mission into the world; but these are not his words in distinction from their report in the Gospels and the evangelists' understanding of them, but his words as reported to us. Efforts which separate between these things are foredoomed to failure in attaining the teaching of Jesus. They may gratify the ingenuity of men, but they can never commend themselves to any but those who make them. To success it is essential to assume, as this present study will frankly do, the equal substantial value of all the evangelical representations of Jesus' teachings, whether they be report, or comment, or application, or implication. And thus the whole text of all the Gospels will be employed as the necessary and indispensable means of interpreting the reproduction found in them of the Saviour's words" (pp. 7-8). The alleged inconsistency between the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels is the product of "falsely so-called critical processes." "The Christ of the four Gospels is a single and consistent personality" (p. 10). A consideration of the environment of the Gospels leads to a discussion of the Epist les. From this, Dr. Foster concludes that "we cannot separate between a theology of Jesus' and a 'theology of Paul,’ the former of which should teach, for example, free forgiveness without an atonement, the latter the necessity of an atonement. At least, we cannot do this before examination. If we should find clear proof of such differences, we should have to accept them; but to infer them from the fact that one is silent, or indefinite as to some doctrine which the other teaches -that would be to forget the principle of environment. When two explanations of passages can be given, one of which makes them agree and the other makes them differ, the former is to be preferred" (pp. 14-15). 66 After passing under review the teaching of Jesus concerning "the preparation," "the lost world and the kingdom of heaven," the salvation of healing," "the salvation of knowledge," "the salvation of repentance and the new life," he reaches the central point of interest touching "the salvation of redemption and forgiveness," closing with a consideration of "the salvation at the last judgment" and with a perspicuous "summary." The author's treatment of redemption and forgiveness is extremely satisfactory. After showing that the Old Testament use of the words translated "ransom" cannot be decisive as to their New Testament meaning, he passes to a consideration of the overwhelming evidence that the whole environment of the New Testament teaches the doctrine that the death of Christ is a propitiatory offering. Matthew xxvi. 28, "This is my blood of the covenant which is poured out for many unto remission of sins," is fundamental in its importance. The "blood of the covenant,' shed unto the remission of sins,' are pivotal words, and point immediately back to the sealing of the covenant by Moses at Sinai" (p. 91). So any Jew familiar with the Scriptures would be sure to understand them. So the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, as seen in the ninth chapter of that book, clearly understood them. To the critical objections that the words "unto remission of sins" are not found in the parallel passages, and are therefore perhaps not a genuine portion of the earliest tradition, and that Jesus is said never to manifest any interest in the ritualistic and institutional elements of religion, and therefore never could have given utterance to these additional words, our author well replies: "The fact that the words in question are found in but one of the evangelists counts but little against them. If Matthew may be said to have added them, it is equally easy to say that the others may have omitted them, for they add nothing essential to the idea conveyed by the phrase blood of the covenant,' which was always propitiatory. It is equally easy to say either, and equally useless. The words stand as an undisputed portion of the text, and can be removed only by the arbitrary methods of a subjective criticism, which has only such value as its originator feels inclined to assign it, and then only for himself. The added argument that Jesus could not have said it, is equally valueless. Jesus never speaks of institutions and ritual,' they say. But here is a case,' it is replied, and other cases are to be found when he speaks of the church and of baptism.' The text is corrupt in all these cases because it would overthrow our proposition,' is the rejoinder. In other words, the criticism assumes such a knowledge of Jesus apart from the records, that it can dispute the records on the basis of that knowledge. But one ounce of fact, such as is given by this text, is worth a ton of conjecture. If the criticism is to be allowed any value, it will put itself in better condition before itself and before the world, if it frankly admits that it believes we know nothing indisputably certain about the teaching of Jesus. But then serious men will not continue to busy themselves with the study of so unknown a teacher" (pp. 94–95). To the objection that Jesus omitted to say anything about the doctrine of the atonement in various places where it might have been appropriate, as, for instance, in the parable of the prodigal son, Dr. Foster replies: "But a 'large' treatment of a subject can never be successful if it neglects the first elements of interpretation. One of these is that a speaker is not compelled to say everything pertaining to a subject every time he touches it. Is the doctrine of forgiveness upon condition of repentance true? Then Jesus may teach it, without necessarily discussing its ground. Another principle of interpretation is that a parable can be held to teach only the truth designed to be taught, and that it cannot be quoted in favor of all the possible inferences from its mere language aside from its main intent. Thus, from the parable of the vineyard, you cannot infer that the divinely intended business of the Jews was exclusively viticulture! or from the parable of the mustard seed (a pungent tasting seedlet) that repentance is always a bitter thing. "Now, as to the parable of the Prodigal Son, one thing is intended by Jesus, and but one, viz., to enforce the position that the Gospel was provided for sinners,' and that God had a new joy over a repentant soul simply because he had been lost. The joy of the father is the point; all the rest is accessory. Of course, certain other doctrines could not fail to be taught, for they contribute to the main effect of the story, or are essential to it. Thus the fact and misery of sin; the motives to repentance; its nature and thorough-going character; find illustration in the parable; but the readiness of the father to receive the sinner, and his equal position in the favor and love of the father with any who may not have gone so grievously astray, is the main thing, and nothing not essential to this can be demanded of the teacher as a necessary portion of his story. Until modern preachers, who believe in the atonement, can be held to mention it every time they speak of forgiveness (and what rhetorician could be as foolish as this?), Jesus cannot be said to have been ignorant of the doctrine or to have rejected it because he did not insert it in such instances as this parable" (pp. 105-107). After, in the concluding chapter, summarizing the mission of Jesus in directly promoting righteousness by all ordinary natural means, the author well says: "But there was a further task. All this could be done by living: now he had to do something which demanded dying. God made him the sacrificial Lamb, who was to bear the sins of the world, on whom was to be laid our iniquities, and by whose stripes we were to be healed. Why this was so, the four Gospels give no hint. But God gave him the commandment that he should lay down his life; and he laid it down of himself. He gave his flesh and blood to the world for its food. He thereby made himself the object of faith. Man needed something more than repentance: he needed forgiveness. He could repent himself: he could not bear his own sins,' or provide for his forgiveness. He needed a Saviour to do this for him, as totally beyond his powers. And Jesus made himself this needed Saviour, when he ascended the cross and bore its solitary burden. When he cried, 'My God! My God! Why hast thou forsaken me?' then he was bruised and smitten by Jehovah, and when he cried, 'It is finished,' then he had made atonement for sins and purchased to himself forever by his blood his church, and thus become the Saviour. "And he who saves, shall finally judge; a judgment which shall open the kingdom of heaven to believers, and shall remand those who love darkness rather than light to the outer darkness which they love-and inexpressibly hate and fear. "In a word then Jesus is Saviour, because he is and does everything necessary to our salvation, provides it for us, and leads us unto it" (pp. 125-126). THE TEACHING OF JESUS. By the Rev. GEORGE JACKSON, B.A., author of "A Young Man's Religion," etc. Crown 8vo. Pp. xii, 252. New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son. 1903. $1.25, net. A clear, able, and conservative treatment of a subject upon which special emphasis is laid at the present time. The book will be instructive to all, and can be safely taken as a guide by the ordinary reader. |