T h e
K i n g ’ s
B u s i n e s s
73
February 1930
ment of its meaning in the person and sacrifice o f Jesus Christ. Had there been evil in it Christ would not have said, “ I came not to d e s t r o y for He certainly came to de stroy the works of evil. Had' there been anything essen tially false in it He would not have said, “ I came to ful fil,” for He hated that which was false. Because it was true, though imperfect, He fulfilled and superseded the law. He introduced the new covenant, making the old void. We affirm, therefore, that it is a misuse of the words of Christ to apply them to religions in which there is a mixture of truth and error. He was not advocating such tolerance. His attitude toward the divine law was not tolerant but reverent, for He recognized it as coming from God. To sum it up, then, we have nothing recorded in Scripture which indicates that Christ ever looked with favor upon any other religion than that represented by “ the law and the prophets.” Mr. Gandhi, the prophet of reform and home rule for India, urges on the part of Christians à more sympathetic attitude toward the religions of thè East. A more sympa thetic attitude toward the followers of those religions than is sometimes shown, we can endorse. But how can one be sympathetic toward that which he knows to be false? There may, at times, be some over-zealous dis ciples who are unnecessarily antagonistic, who stir up re sentment and thereby defeat the very purpose for which their zeal burns. On the other hand, one can have a re spectful attitude toward men of other faiths, while still remaining zealous for the true and intolerant toward the false. Paul’s appeal to the men of Athens is a fitting ex ample of this latter method. Beginning his address he said, “ Ye men o f Athens, in dll things I perceive ye are very religious.” When he had captured their attention, he said, “ Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him de clare I unto you.” Notice that he tactfully praised their devotions even though, because of their ignorance, the object of their devotions was wrong. At the same time he found an appropriate way to point them to the true Object of worship, Jesus Christ. Paul was courteous with Jews also, but in dealing with truth-rejecting Jews and with the Jewish element in the Church which sought to mix the bondage of the law with the freedom of the Gospel of grace, he was rigid’and in tolerant toward the error which he hated. Tolerance towards the followers of a false religion may be either right or wrong, according to the condition in which the individual follower is found. Here, too, we may turn to Christ for our example. Toward every gen uine seeker after truth, whether within or without the camp of Israel, He was gracious. Addressing the Samari tan woman, he secured her interest in the true religion be fore revealing the lack in her own. Toward the Syro- Phenician woman, He seemed at first to be intolerant, reminding her of religious distinctions to her disadvan tage. He. did this, however, to draw out her faith and to make her an example to unbelieving Israel. He ended by highly commending her and granting her request. Toward the men who had set themselves agains.t the truth, though professedly religious, He was stern and uncompromising. Upon the religious leaders, who refused to enter the king dom of heaven, and tried to hinder those who would, He pronounced the heaviest of woes. If, by tolerance, it is meant that we refrain from un thinking and hostile criticism of non-Christian religions, we can.favor tolerance. But if it means the classing of all religions as good, more or less inferior to Christianity, but neéding only to be supplemented by the ethical teach ings of Jesus, then we are intolerant of such tolerance.
were they acquainted with the power of God, which is at work in and through the true religion. How could they, then, believe in such a supernatural event as the resur rection of the body, when they were ignorant of the Word of God and the power of God? A religion that knows neither of these is false and dangerous, even though there may be mingled with the falsehood some elements of truth. Jesus not only rebuked the Pharisees but also pro nounced upon them the most terrible woes. His indict ment of them was unsparingly frank and severe, for they erred in spite of their knowledge of the Scriptures. They were zealous for the law but made it void by their unwar ranted additions. They constantly violated the spirit while they obeyed the letter of the law. Their man-made traditions stamped the law with incompleteness and imper fection. It tampered with what God had given to Israel through Moses; under the most solemn circumstances. To the fourth commandment, which was intended to add to man’s happiness and welfare, they added many restric tions which forbade even acts of mercy, so that the Sab bath had become a burden, the very reverse of what God had intended. Furthermore, they emphasized exterior washings while neglecting the inner life, which th?y left uncleansed. They paraded their religious devotions to cover wrong conduct. They were sanctimonious but their hearts were far from God. In short, there can be no doubt that Jesus condemned their formal worship and pronounced it worthless, for, as He made clear, true worship is a matter of the inner life and is not something intended pri marily for the eyes and ears of men. The whole religious system of Christ’s day was wrong at the core, and showed its real nature in the rejection of Jesus Christ, because He did not suit the Jewish leaders. Jesus foretold His com ing rejection and also predicted judgments of the severest nature upon Israel, including the coming desolation of their temple, their holy city and their land. When we re member that these predictions have been fulfilled and that much of the Jewish ritual has never been resumed, can there be any doubt as to His attitude toward that which He stamped as a false religious system? I ntolerance T oward E rror , L ove T oward S inners ‘ After this careful study of the words, acts and atti tudes of the Lord Jesus, how can we conclude that He was tolerant toward religions or religious sects which polluted or diluted the truth ? Rather He exposed and condemned error wherever He met it, but always in a spirit of love and with an urgent appeal to those who were in the wrong to repent and accept the truth. Even to the Pharisees who bitterly opposed Him and His teaching, and whose hy pocrisy He mercilessly exposed, He continued to the last to give earnest appeals and warnings. In other words, His attitude was that of intolerance toward sin and error, but unfailing and tender love toward sinners. Such should be the Christian attitude. The words of Christ, “I came not to destroy but to fulfil," are frequently quoted by those who would show Him to be an advocate of tolerance, but with utter dis regard to the context in which these words are found. Non-Christian religions were not under consideration. On the contrary, Jesus was speaking about the law given by God to Israel to guide them in their religious life until He should come whom the law foreshadowed. At His com ing, all the types and shadows of the law were fulfilled in Himself, the great antitype. All types are imperfect, but they can foreshadow Christ without admixture of error. The ceremonial law was not inherently wrong; rather it was correct, when understood in the light of the fulfill
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs