The New Covenant Israel by WM. E. COX, 1963, Third edition, 74 pages

An Examination of Dispensationalism by WM. E. COX, 1963, 58 pages, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia

These two paperbacks by the same author are significant. The author, a southern Baptist, and steeped in the teachings of the Scofield Bible. becomes a convert and returns to the sane interpretation of the Scriptures. Per se, these monographs present nothing new for one who has not been trained as was the author. For those who cling to the errors of dispensationalism, this writing is nothing short of sensational. This reviewer expresses the ardent wish that Cox many receive a hearing, in order that many may be led to the conversion he experienced. Dispensationalism is not biblical; in fact it is rank heresy.

CHRISTIAN HUISSEN

The King of the Earth by ERICH SAUER, Eerdmans, 256 pages, price $3.95

Lord of the Flies. The King of the Earth. As books go these days it is difficult to learn from either the title or the cover what the subject matter will be. In this ease the author clarifies it with a subtitle: “The Nobility of Man According to the Bible and Science.” That should heighten our expectation and coming as it does from the hand of Erich Sauer we would also expect this book to be a solid work in some phase of theology. In this we are not disappointed. It is a Biblical study of the doctrine of man.

Our conclusions are usually determined by our starting point. Some begin with man in their effort to arrive at a god. Others begin with God in order to come to conclusions concerning man. Sauer take the latter method. This the the way of humility. He shows in sequel that the way of self-exaltation leads to man’s eventual denigration. True nobility can be attained only when we begin with the God of creation.

Man’s suggestion of self-effacement in which he denies the order of creation are only a veiled method whereby he would attain his basic goal, sell-exaltation. By making himself a bit of worthless flotsam on a sea of chance man gets rid of God. He may not be able to manipulate the godless universe completely, but at least he will not subject himself to the manipulating power of God. Sauer sums up this intention of man in a quotation from Nietzsche, “If there were gods, how could I endure It to be no god?” Thomas Carlyle spoke to the point at a learned conference in London when he said, “Gentlemen, you place man a little higher than the tadpole. I hold with the ancient singer; Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels.” (Psalm 8:6) The unbeliever is quite satisfied to begin with the tadpole, if by so doing he can end with no king in the earth but himself.

In his discussion concerning the origin of evil, Sauer concludes that the problem is basically inexplicable. Rationalistic explanations only lead to impossible conclusions concerning God. At this point he warns against the pitfalls of rationalism, particularly tho notion that the province of reason has no limitations. “When all has been said, however, He Himself remains to the finite understanding of the creature the incomprehensible and unfathomable. Here we must desist from all questioning and searching.” (p. 58)

To some, this may sound like an unscientific and Irrational recommendation. But Sauer suggests, ”There is nothing more irrational than ‘Rationalism’. Indeed, our reason tells us that like can only be understood by like, therefore, God only by God.” (p. 59) What he is saying here in essence is that Rationalism cannot lead us to an ultimate rationality or base of meaning. Yet in the same breath he suggests that reason tells us that Cod can only be known by God. This will not seem inconsistent when we realize that we must use analysis hilt that analysis itself cannot be our ultimate arbiter as to truth and meaning.

While posing a caution against Rationalism, Sauer does not swing to the opposite extreme of placing man against a God who is the “Wholly Other” and, therefore, ineffable. Man must listen to God in faith. Nothing here suggests the crisis approach of the existentialists. It is simply, “He who would look into God’s secrets must be adorned with the triple ornament of humility, reverence. and faith. Where these are found, light from the throne of the Most High falls into the heart of the creature, and, in spite of all consciousness of minuteness and insufficiency, he will cry out joyfully, ‘The Lord is God. and He hath given us light. Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar.” (Psalm 118:27)

Elsewhere Sauer confirms his balanced approach. After reviewing some of the “proofs” for the existence of God he states, HIt is clear that none of these proofs demonstrate the existence of God as does a proof in In.1thematics. “It is, however. neither could or should be the case.” (p. 167 ) …“It is not our intellect which convinces our heart, but our heart which convinces our intellect. Or, to quote again well-known words of the great French mathematician Pascal. ‘God has so willed that Divine truths should not enter tho heart through the understanding, but that they should enter the understanding through the heart. For while one must know human things to love them. one must love Divine things to know them.” (p.168)

Even though Sauer believes thAt there is a gap between the comprehension of God and that of man. he docs not overlook or deny God’s immanent activity, especially in the area of revelation. He does not lapse into a Barthian view of revelation generally and the Scriptures in particular. Scripture is an objective revelation. “We grant that not past history is in itself the main thing (apart from the decisive events in the work of redemption) but the spiritual message, which God speaks to us and to our day, and to the day of every hearer, in that history and through it. But unless it had taken place, God would not have spoken, and our faith would be without reliable foundation.” (p. 198)

A strong historical emphasis may lead one to inductive criteria in the matter of deciding infallibility and inerrancy. Not so with Sauer. He states, “The Bible is a lion, and a lion can defend itself! God’s Book does not need to be protected by human, believing readers. Its authority originates with its Divine author.” He quotes with approval the words of St. Augustine, “If I come upon something here or there which does not seem to agree with the truth, then I do not doubt for a moment that either a mistake in the copy, or that the translation has not exactly expressed the thoughts of the original, or that I have not understood the matter.” (p.201)

The example of Sauer’s approach to the problem of man’s knowledge is typical of a generally balanced approach. In so far as we have not been tempted in the direction of a Thomistic rationalism or a Barthian irrationalism, we may agree.

However, as the writer proceeds to discuss the origins of man and attempts to accommodate the Genesis account to the findings of geology and paleontology, we may find more points of difference.

First, we may note that Sauer has an interesting interpretation of man’s cultural mandate. This interpretation is tied to his period or day·age interpretation of the creation account. Though each stage of creation was good, the long periods which lapsed between each stage allowed for the influences and effects of evil which could be inserted because Satan had already been cast from heaven. This must be so because fossil evidence shows it.

that is, the results of death. Further proof, for Sauer, lies in the fact that man was placed in Paradise as a special environment away from the evil which was in the universe at large. It was from this base of operations that he must conquer the fest of the world for God. Through the fall man failed in this. “But the first result of man’s fall was that he did not accomplish his vocation. Thus destruction remained in the animal world because of man. The ground also, cultivated by man, remained under the curse because of him.” (p. 242, also pp. 92, 93. Italics mine, NA V.T.) This interpretation would scarcely receive confirmation from Reformed scholars generally. (E.g. compare Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol II, p. 102; Herman Bavinck. Our Reasonable Faith, pp. 181 ff.) Sauer suggests that Adam’s task was soteriological. Adam’s obedience and work would redeem the natural realm from the effects of an already present evil. Failing in this, a Second Adam became necessary.

Those who want to explain the earth’s layers and fossil remains in terms of the Flood will find themselves directly challenged by Sauer. He states flatly, “The attempt to interpret the geological facts as results of the Flood is Impossible.” (p. 221) The substantiating arguments are certainly worthy of careful consideration. It is not our purpose to rehearse and evaluate them. (For the Flood explanation see Whitcomb and Morris, The Genesis Flood) We need only add that although Sauer takes the “Period” view, he doesn’t attempt to break down the idea of creation “after its kind”. He does not place the primates in the background of man’s development.

The King of the Earth is eminently worth reading as a refresher course in Christian anthropology. We must certainly agree with its author when he says. “There is no doubt that science and faith are not fundamentally and mutually exclusive… It (science) belongs to man’s rule over the earth and is part of his exercise of kingship and nobility. But far too often man has lived without thought of God’s claims to dominion; he has denied His existence and has tried in his own strength without God to exalt himself. Therefore, God’s word calls him to return and repent.” (p. 245) In this way of repentance man can find the way back to his true nobility.

NICK R. VAN TIL

Preaching Values from the Papyri by H.H. HOBBS, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 123 pages; price $2.95

For those who do not have access to the larger works-such as The vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-Literary Sources (by J. H. Moulton and G. Milligan)—this book has real value. It remind! one of such older titles as J. H. Moulton’s From Egyptian Rubbish Heaps and G. Milligan’s Here and There Among the Papyri. The author takes forty words that occur in the Greek New Testament, arranges them in alphabetical order. and examines each word as it appears in the papyri and in the New Testament. He seeks to show what light the meaning of the word in the papyri sheds on its meaning in the New Testament. The treatment is interesting and will be of real help, and this not only for the minister but for every earnest Bible-student. Here and there we have allowed ourselves to question the author’s accuracy. He uses the words papyrus and papyri as if both were singular. So, for example, on p. 107 he writes, “What does the papyri say?” On p. 37 occurs the title:

BAPTIZO (Submerged)

The chapter is in keeping with this caption. Here it is only fair to bear in mind that he is pastor of the First Baptist Church, Oklahoma City. He ventures an interpretation of the difficult passage, “Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead” (I Cor. 15:29), which, I feel sure, will not be universally accepted.

But these are relatively minor matters. Dr. Hobbs has written a fine, popular book. We hope it will have a wide sale.

WM. HENDRIKSEN