744
THE K I N G ’ S B U S I N E S S
“beliefs of the early Christians” Shailer Matthews means the teachings of the inspired Apostles and even of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, though he is not courageous nor honest enough to come right out and say so, but his whole book let shows it) can be understood only as they are studied in the light of the habits of thought prevalent in their days. HIS TORICALLY-MINDED STUDENTS OF THE BIBLE DISTINGUISH B E T WE E N FUNDAMENTAL C h ristian tbuths and th e method and LANGUAGE USED BY THE EARLY CHRISTIANS IN EXPRESSING THESE TRUTHS. (The emphasis here is Shailer Matthews’ own.) They believe that, in order to realize these truths th e conceptions of these ANCIENT MEN OF GOD HAVE TO RE TRANS LATED INTO MODERN CONCEPTIONS e x actly as the Hebrew or Greek language has to be, translated into English.” Shailer Matthews calls the method of Bible inter pretation he here advocates, the “ h is torical method .” It is absolutely noth ing of the sort. The “historical” method of Biblical interpretation has a clearly defined sense. The real “historical” method of interpretation is this, that the words in the Bible should be interpreted according to their grammatical construc tion and in the light of the historical usage of the day, and to that method of interpretation no intelligent student has any objection. Shailer Matthews has sub stituted for this really “ historical ” method an entirely different method of interpretation, and calls it the “histor ical” method, which it is not at all. He also calls it the “ common sense way ,” but if we will only look at it a moment we will see that so far from being the “com mon sense way,”,it is absolutely nonsense. It is a method of interpretation that no translator outside of a lunatic, asylum would dream of applying to Plato, Homer, Virgil, Horace or any book but the Bible. He says further, “the conceptions of these ancient men of God have to be translated into modern conceptions exactly as the Hebrew or Greek language has to be
translated into English.” A few moments consideration' will show that these words of Shailer Matthews are absolute non sense. Translating Hebrew and Greek words and grammatical constructions and idioms into their exactly corresponding English words, constructions and idioms -is one thing, a reasonable and common sense thing, but translating th e thoughts of “ancient men of God” or' anyone else into other thoughts utterly alien to their own and oftentimes flatly contra dicting their own, is not translation at all, and this whole sentence is simply a ridiculous attempt to defend the substitu tion of Shailer Matthews’and others’ evo lutionary (and revolutionary) vagaries for what Jesus Christ and the inspired Apos tles actually taught. This is not translation at all. It is distortion, perversion, sub stitution and prostitution. Shailer Matthews goes on to say, “Thus the is sue is plain. It is not between those who believe the Bible and those who dis believe it. It is between ways of using the Bible.” ’) The statement is an abso lute falsehood. The .issue is between those who believe the Bible, those who translate Hebrew and/ Greek words into equivalent English words and believe what it says, and those who throw, over board what it says, substituting some thing else for it simply because they dis believe what the Bible says. Shailer Matthews feels himself compelled to admit that if we are to take the Bible at its face value, as we take any other BOOK OF THE PAST OR PRESENT, the “Pre- millennial propaganda” is “true to the Bible,” but he tries to explain it away by saying of the Premillenarian that “he is really true to an improper way of using the Bible. His loyalty to the Bible amounts to making outgrown or tempor ary words and conceptions equally true with what they attempt to express.” To this we would say that there is no other form of loyalty to the Bible, or any other book, than by taking its words and con ceptions to mean what they say; and to
Made with FlippingBook Online document