A CRITICISM OF A RECENT “POINTED PARAGRAPH”

The article “Confusion in Regard to Orthodoxy” in TORCH AND TRUMPET, September 1960, initialed W.K.–H.J.K., has grieved me. Until recently I felt frustrated thinking, What’s the use protesting against journalism of such inferior quality? Such frustration may be the reason why the man accused in that article has not raised his voice in protest. However I now present my plea knowing that silence accomplishes nothing, that protest is truly fraternal and that an honest plea may, among brethren, have wholesome effects.

The article condemned Rev. Leonard Verduin thus: “Liberals in theology often speak unfavorably and even scornfully of orthodox Christianity. It is hard to understand why brethren who confess the orthodox faith should do this.” It put him in the class of those who speak scornfully of orthodox Christianity. That was public condemnation of a brother minister in good standing. It put a cloud on his honor and reputation in the church. That was not a trivial matter.

The article states the basis of that condemnation thus: “The implication of the writer’s constant play on the word ‘orthodoxy’ seemed to be: Beware of orthodoxy; if you are orthodox you are on the wrong track! The use of the word in quotation marks scarcely concealed his apparent distaste for the term. Instead of charging Jonah, the Pharisees and Simon Peter with dead or false orthodoxy, thereby safeguarding the proper use of the term and creating a favorable disposition toward genuine orthodoxy, the writer cast reflection on a word that should be precious to all who love the truth of God.”

I point out that the condemnation was on the basis of what, to the editors, seemed to be implied, on what to them was apparent, on what they thought was an aversion scarcely concealed under quotation marks, on the words “Beware of orthodoxy; if you are orthodox you are on the wrong track!” They are not presented as his words, but they are put into his mouth, by way of implication, and place him in a bad light. They are the words of the editors. In the entire article the basis of condemnation comes not from the condemned but from his accusers. It is their subjective opinion of what was actually written. In the entire article not one thought or sentence of the condemned is quoted. A man is indeed responsible for what is logically implied in his words, but there is no valid logic by which, in serious discussion, a man’s words imply the exact opposite of what he says. He says explicitly that he deals with something evil that passed for orthodoxy and, behold, he is condemned as speaking scornfully of orthodox Christianity! By what kind of logic must a man who swats hornets be accused of killing honey bees?

What grieves me, to be exact, is that a brother was condemned on subjective interpretation instead of objective evidence, on suspicion instead of quotation, by reading between lines and by judging motives of indirection and concealment. I submit that with such inferior methods anyone can be condemned. If they should become accepted practice it would become precarious business for any of us to write and we would have low-level journalism.

I confess that at times I can hardly suppress a bit of envy when I find noble examples of high-level journalism among worldly people who have no more than the benefits of Common Grace. The admirable qualities of kindness, fairness and objectivity honor such writers and commend their standards. Such writing promotes mutual confidence and respect which are too often lacking among us. It is amazing to note how near such writers come to a parallel, on their level, to the Scriptural love which “thinketh no evil” and “is not easily provoked.”

Such writers would not countenance ignoring quotation marks around a word, nor reading something evil in them, nor reading between the lines to condemn a man. They would read the record as it was written. If I do that carefully and repeatedly with the meditations concerned I do not find a trace of scorning of orthodox Christianity nor of casting reflection on the word orthodoxy in its usual sense. (If the editors did, then quotation was in order.) Instead the condemned was dealing with evils which passed for orthodoxy. Let me prove this by quoting him and italicizing the pertinent expressions:

“Remember that the Church of Christ has suffered more from what passed. for orthodoxy than from anything else—yesterday we left Peter in the excellent discipline of weighing his own ‘orthodoxy’ against the word of God—It shows that mistaken orthodoxy is never hopeless—an orthodoxy that has been distorted—mistaken Orthodoxy—mistaken orthodoxy is hard to banish—he (Jonah ) would rather die than adjust his ‘orthodoxy’—It was ‘orthodoxy’ that made the Reformation necessary—conflict between Peter’s own ‘orthodoxy’ and God’s own word.”

 

OUR REPLY

We have read Rev. Henry Verduin’s defense of the “meditations” of his brother Leonard Verduin with care but have not changed our mind about the spirit and general thrust of those Daily Manna Calendar leaflets.

First, let us call attention to the fact that we received no letter of protest from the brother whose “meditations” we criticized. Rev. Henry Verduin states that “frustration” because of our type of journalism “may be the reason why the man accused in that article has not raised his voice in protest.” That would be a strange reason indeed. If a man is concerned at all about his own honor he will defend himself if he is accused unjustly. If he will not do so for his own honor’s sake he should do it for the truth’s sake. To us Rev. Leonard Verduin’s failure to reply is at least an admission that we had not entirely misjudged the drift of his “meditations.” But, to settle this for good, let us make this offer: If Rev. Leonard Verduin will write us and can truthfully say that he had no intention whatsoever to “take a crack” at certain men among us for their defense of what they believe to be the orthodox faith, we shall apologize for writing as we did. But then the brother will also have to explain certain features of his articles on which we based our interpretation. And he will also have to admit that his Scriptural examples of mistaken orthodoxy were misinterpretations, as we shall prove.

For one thing, one of the reasons why we and all those with whom we discussed those articles were displeased, not to say disgusted, with the constantly repeated references to “orthodoxy,” or “mistaken orthodoxy” (in one instance the quotation marks were omitted) was the fact that not a single word was said in favor of the true orthodox faith. Not one! Our critic accuses us of “reading between the lines.” There is a sense in which we have the right and the duty to read between the lines. Sermons, articles, books must be judged not only by what they say on their subject but also by the important things which they fail to say. How often our people have listened to sermons in other churches or over the radio in which everything that was said was true but which were wholly unsatisfactory because the speaker failed to say what should have been said. We have reread the leaflets in question and have not found H single statement of appreciation for true orthodoxy -that is, in favor of a faithful adherence to the true Christian faith. To us it is a psychological mystery that a minister committed to the orthodox faith and loving that faith (we assume this to be true of our Ann Arbor minister) can fail to say one word in defense of that faith when he feels called to castigate those who, in his opinion, merely imagine that they are orthodox.

Second, the writer knew the people for whom he was writing. He must have had a reason for warning them so persistently against “mistaken orthodoxy” by calling attention to the “mistaken orthodoxy” of Jonah and Simon Peter, as revealed in their alleged unconcern for those outside of the covenant. He must have felt that this unconcern is more or less common among those who read the Daily Manna Calendar. One does not use the terms “orthodox,” “orthodoxy,” “mistaken orthodoxy” twenty-six times, each time in an unfavorable sense, a.s denoting indifference to the spiritual welfare of “outsiders,” unless one believes that this is a serious weakness in the group for which one writes. But we do not believe there is such prevalent unconcern among the readers of Daily Manna. There may have been a time when a narrow covenant conception prevailed among some Reformed people but to assume that it prevails now is to ignore facts—the fact of our vigorous denominational evangelistic program and the fact that practically every one of our churches, large and small, is engaged in some sort of neighborhood evangelism.

Third, the writer strained himself to find examples in Scripture of “mistaken orthodoxy” on the part of God’s servants. Jonah’s reluctance to go to Nineveh and preach against it is misinterpreted entirely. According to Rev. L. Verduin, Jonah’s “conception of the Covenant theology was that God’s total disposition toward this [those?] ‘outside’ is one of dislike and wrath.” But that is not true. Jonah’s own interpretation of his refusal to preach to Nineveh is as follows: “Therefore I hasted to flee unto Tarshish; for knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and abundant in lovingkindness, and repentest thee of the evil.” That is the very opposite of Rev. Verduin’s appraisal of Jonah. These words of the prophet himself show he believed that Jehovah the God of Israel would show mercy and lovingkindness even to the heathen Ninevites if they would hearken to his warning. The writer’s indictment of Jonah’s covenant theology is without warrant. He casts a blot on Jonah’s reputation which is undeserved. Let Rev. Henry Verduin, who lectures us on our “inferior” journalism, consider whether his brother Leonard does not deserve a lecture for sullying the name of one of the Lord’s prophets.

What, then, was the reason for Jonah’s unwillingness to go to Nineveh? Not a narrow covenant view, to be sure, but, as any good commentator will tell us, his intense patriotism, his love for Israel, his fear that if Nineveh were spared it would destroy the chosen nation.

Rev. L. Verduin’s second example of “mistaken orthodoxy” and a narrow conception of the covenant is that of Simon Peter, who needed a heavenly vision to feel free to preach the gospel to Cornelius, the Roman centurion, and his household. But here again we find a misinterpretation. According to Rev. L. Verduin, Peter had imbibed his prejudices against the Gentiles from the Pharisees. We read that he had received “his theological diet from the Pharisees.” This view finds no support in Scripture and does Peter an injustice. Peter’s “theological diet” had its source in Old Testament teaching, particularly its distinction between clean and unclean animals, representing a clean nation and unclean nations. Jesus himself had forbidden the apostles, when he first sent them out to preach, to go to the Gentiles and he himself preached only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. True, the Lord gave them the great commission before his ascension, to preach the gospel to all nations; but he had not revealed to them that the wall between Jew and Gentile would be broken down to the extent that none of the Old Testament rites would be necessary for Gentile converts. When Peter refused to eat of the clean and unclean animals in the vision he was expressing his reverence for an Old Testament law. And his hesitation to associate on an equal footing with the Gentiles was also the result of his reverence for distinctions which God himself had made. It required a divine revelation to make him realize that the distinctions had been abrogated. If Rev. Henry Verduin is grieved by what we wrote, let him grieve also about his brother’s accusation that Peter had obtained his theology from the Pharisees. One can defame the dead as well as the living.

We know of no commentator who supports Rev. Verduin’s idea. Calvin writes as follows in his Commentary on Acts, pages 419–421: “It is showed to Peter that the difference which God had made (italics ours) in times past is now taken away. And as He had put difference between his creatures, so, having chosen to himself one people, he counted all nations unclean and profane.” Farther on Calvin says: “According to his order, it had not been lawful to Peter to bring the covenant of salvation unto the Gentiles; for that was to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs (Matt. 15:26), unless, peradventure, they would be circumcised and embrace the Jewish religion. Wherefore, when as apostles they were sent before to preach the gospel, they were forbidden to turn in unto the Gentiles (Matt. 10:5). And forasmuch as the preaching of the gospel is a most holy and weighty matter, Peter ought not to have attempted anything therein with a doubting and wavering mind.”

Calvin then takes up the objection that “Peter was taught concerning this matter, for he and the rest were commanded to preach the gospel throughout the whole world (Mark 16:15). Therefore he was either ignorant of his calling, or else the vision was superfluous. I answer that there was such and so great difficulty in the novelty itself, that they could not acquaint themselves therewith by and by. They knew both the prophecies and the prophets and the late commandment of Christ concerning the calling of the Gentiles by the gospel; but when they come to the push, they doubted nevertheless, being stricken with the strangeness of the thing. Wherefore, it is no marvel if the Lord confirm Peter with a new sign.”

We find the same interpretation in Lenski’s Commentary on Acts (pages 397, 398). We read first: “It is God himself, then, who here abrogates the Old Mosaic command (not the tradition of the Pharisees!–K.) about clean and unclean animals and foods.” Later Lenski says: “This reaction of Peter is most noteworthy as revealing to us the deep hold which the old Jewish regulations about ceremonial cleanness had even upon the apostles, and how much was necessary to break this hold and to open the door of the church to the ceremonially unclean Gentiles. The Lord himself had to intervene, as here he did, to cause the break that simply had to be made. It was revolutionary in the highest degree even for the apostles. Even they needed much time to recognize that all the ceremonial laws were only temporary, only for the old covenant, in force only till the Messiah should come.”

So the two examples which brother Verduin finds in Scripture of false or mistaken orthodoxy disappear. A true example could have been found in the Pharisees of Jesus’ day but Rev. Verduin needed examples from among the true servants of God to prove his point (proud unconcern in the church for “outsiders”) and he imagined he found them in Jonah and Peter.

In conclusion. We regard Rev. L. Verduin as a normal and indeed very alert individual. But to us it is psychologically impossible for such an individual to devote seven short essays to an expose of “mistaken orthodoxy” if he does not find prominent traces of it in the group for which he writes. Considering the stand which he has taken the past few years on certain doctrinal issues in the Christian Reformed Church, we believe we know whom he had in mind when he wrote about “mistaken orthodoxy.” But we simply do not believe that this kind of “orthodoxy” which he was combating—the kind which is so narrow that it refuses to bring the gospel to “outsiders”—exists among those for whom he wrote his “meditations.” Nor do we believe his statement that “such mistaken orthodoxy is the greatest evil with which the Church is confronted .” On the contrary, one of the greatest, if not the greatest, evil in the Church today is doctrinal indifference, the lack of zeal for true orthodoxy, for an uncompromising stand for the verities of the Christian faith.

As for our type of journalism, it will, with God’s help, continue to be the kind that endeavors to speak the truth in love and does not hesitate to express dissent when the Scripture is misinterpreted.

W. Kok H. J. Kuiper

WAS GOD’S COVENANT WITH ABRAHAM EVER ABOLISHED?

It was not; it is not now and never will be until the culmination of all things. God‘s covenant with Abraham was an everlasting covenant. Therefore it still stands.

The covenant of Cod with Abraham is one of the pinnacles in sacred history. It is the first positive step that God took, according to the Scriptures. to narrow down to one man and his seed the fulfillment of the original promise given to Adam and Eve in Paradise, when he told them that the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent.

God said to Abraham: “A father of many nations have I made thee and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” God said moreover: “I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.”

The covenant of God with Abraham is indeed a high point in history and is fundamental. God chose Abraham when he was yet in Ur of the Chaldees, brought him in the land of Canaan, and promised to give that land to his seed after him and to bless him and his seed greatly. In this manner God set one man and one nation (his offspring) apart to preserve the knowledge and service of the living God in a world which had largely gone to idolatry. And also to bring forth the promised seed.

The promise was to Abraham and his seed. It is to be noted that not all the fleshly descendants of Abraham were included in this covenant. We read that Ishmael, Abraham’s son, was born after the flesh. He was not in the covenant, though he received the sign of the covenant. God said: “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” Isaac was the son of promise. And God wrought a miracle in the body of Sarah, so that she could have a son even when she was ninety years old.

Isaac had two sons: Esau and Jacob. But the covenant was continued only with Jacob and not with Esau. Esau became a covenant;breaker whose·whole being centered in the things of this world. Jacob“ received the patriarchal blessing (though he obtained it by guile). And when for .that reason he had to flee from the face of his brother, Isaac pronounced upon rum the blessing of Abraham. And when Jacob fled and had come as far as Bethel God appeared to him in a dream and said: “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.”

It is evident therefore that not all the fleshly descendants of Abraham became the inheritors of the covenant blessings. Abraham had yet other sons besides Isaac and ‘Ishmael. But the promised land was given only to the children of Israel, which was Jacob’s new name. And the spiritual aspect of the covenant was interwoven with the national and material side of it. The ordinance of circumcision was to be kept as a sign of the covenant. All the seed of Abraham kept that sign outwardly. But the deeper spiritual meaning was only for the children of promise, for those who with believing Abraham “looked for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.” It is a sad fact that the children of Israel did not keep this covenant as they should have. They often served idols like the neighboring heathen nations. Therefore God often punished them for their unfaithfulness and finally brought them into captivity. But he remembered his covenant with Abraham and brought the children of Israel back in their promised land where they remained until the fullness of time.

It was in the fullness of time that God raised up the seed which was referred to in the promise to Abraham and before him in the promise to Adam and Eve in Paradise. This seed, Paul explains, was Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of Man. He was the special seed by birth as well as by promise. Wherefore also his birth is recorded as a miracle. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. His birth was in a richer measure a counterpart of the birth of Isaac.

When this seed was brought forth, when Jesus was born, the Sun of Righteousness with healing in his wings, it signified the culmination of the time of preparation. When this promised seed came, the time of incubation was ended; the material aspect of the covenant had lost its meaning and was set aside for the richer and more comprehensive blessings which were included in the covenant with Abraham. That covenant with Abraham was not thereby abrogated. Merely the hull and the shell had been dropped so that the seed might shine in its full glory. It had now received a far more glorious and larger meaning than it had in the time of preparation. God himself gave a sign from heaven that the time of types and shadows had now ended by rending the veil of the temple from the top to the bottom. When the Son of Man gave his life a sacrifice for sin on Calvary, when he said: “It is finished,” then all the former sacrifices and offerings were fulfilled in that one offering of the Lamb of God on the accursed tree. The covenant blessings of Abraham which had run in the narrow channel of the children of Israel were now expanded to include all who put their trust in that Lame of God and who believe in. him for the forgiveness of their sins. They are all counted as the seed of Abraham, as the apostle Paul explains, and have become heirs according to the promise.

Salvation, the essence of the covenant blessing, was now not only for the Jews, but for Jews and Gentiles alike for all who believe in the promised Seed. It is still being expanded to every nation under the sun, whenever any lost sheep are brought into the fold. Japheth is now dwelling with them in the tents of Shem. The natural branches, the fleshly descendants of Abraham, are not excluded. All are ingrafted in the good olive tree, whether they were of the natural branches or of those who were by nature wild. All are partakers of the fatness of the one olive tree. All have listened to the voice of the good Shepherd, whether of the home fold or of the other sheep which Jesus said he had to bring in.

This glorious fulfillment of God’s covenant with Abraham establishes the kingdom of heaven and its righteousness. which Jesus says we should. seek first. This kingdom of heaven is embodied in the church of the living God and of the Lamb. And the Lamb is the King who as the Head of the Church rules in the hearts of his children. Paul writes to the Colossians: “We have been delivered from the power of darkness and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son.” It will last till the end of time, the culmination of all things, When the trumpet of the Lord shall sound And time shall be no more And the morning breaks, eternal, bright and fair,”  —when the Son shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father.

Peter L. Van Dyken