Full Text for CTM Theological Observer 3-8 (Text)

622 Theological Observer. -.Ritdjlidj~8eitgefdjidjtlidjeil. Theological Observer. -~ifdjndj"8citgefdjidjtIidje£l. 1. 2lmtrlka. An Exegetical Curiosity. -An article appearing in a recent issue of a Lutheran theological magazine, published in America, constitutes the latest attempt to dispel the obscurity surrounding I Oor. 15, 29. We sub­mit its essential statements: "'Else what shall they do which are bap­tized for the dead if the dead rise not at all 7 Why are they, then, bap­tized for the dead 7' Dr. Robertson, in his great Grammar of the (hoeek New Testament, p. 630, says: 'This obscure passage still remains a puzzle to the interpreter.' It is a well-known fact that a large number of inter­pretations have been attempted, and it is just as certain that the Scrip­tural, satisfactory, cOILvincing interpretation has never yet been given to the Ohurch. In the present article we propose to show what the Bible itself teaches on the subject. . .. In his Bi1Jlia Illustrata Calovius enu­merates twenty-three different interpretations, including the one put forth by Luther. Luther translates 'ueber den Toten,' and his view was that new converts were baptized over or upon the graves of departed Chris­tians. While it is perfectly true that the fundamental significance of v:n:ie is 'over,' we know of no instance in the Greek New Testament where this preposition with the genitive case can mean 'over' in a local sense, and no one can prove from history that such a practise was in vogue in the apostolic congregations." (Winer, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs 6, p. 342, submits: "The fact that v:n:ie would be used but once in its simplest, the local, significance constitutes no argument against its bearing that sense here." And if Luther's interpretation is correct, this solitary statement of the apostle is sufficient, in a historic way, to establish the existence of the custon in question.) " ... Meyer's explanation is that Ohristians, who, of course, had been baptized once, were baptized the second time instead of and in behalf of people that had died without having received the Sacrament of Baptism. But ... the Apostle Paul, who wrote our epistle in order to correct a number of abuses in the Oorinthian congregation, would certainly have had" a word or two to say in condemnation of such a practise, had it actually been in vogue." (See also Luther, VIII, 1196: "Das ist nichts. For there is Acts 2, 38, where Peter says: 'Be baptized, everyone of you, in the name of Jesus Ohrist,' etc. It will never do that one should be baptized for another, even as everyone must personally repent, believe, and confess his faith, etc.") " ... It will not be necessary to go through the whole long list of suggested interpretations. They all have this one thing in common: they utterly ignore the principle that Scripture must be interpreted by Scripture. Con­sequently they are ~ere guesses, without any Scripture foundation what­ever. . .. If, therefore, we desire to arrive at the precise truth concerning the question under consideration, there is positively nothing else to be done than to find and examine the passage upon which our verse is based; and when this task shall have been accomplished, all uncertainty will have vanished like mist before the meridian sun, and we shall be rejoicing in the possession of the truth. . .. The first five verses of the third chap-Theological Observer. -Ritd,llid).8eitgefdJid)tHdJell. 623 ter of Malachi constitute the passage upon which Matt. 3,11 is based. In the Malachi passage we read: 'He shall purify the sons of Levi and purge them as gold and silver.' This is explained in the Matthew passage as follows: 'He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.' Ac­cording to John 3, 22 sqq. both Jesus and John the Baptist were bap­tizing, Jesus not doing it personally, but through His disciples. The fact that Jesus was thus making disciples gave rise to jealousy on the part of ·the disciples of John. The dispute which arose was therefore about baptizing; but in John 3, 25 we are told that it was about purifying. Reb. 9, 10 speaks of 'divers washings,' literally, 'various baptisms.' The various Old Testament ceremonial lustrations are meant, and in v. 13 we are told that such lustrations sanctified to the purifying of the flesh. . .. In Eph. 5,26 we read: 'that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.' These examples may suffice to prove that the true meaning of 'baptize' is 'purify.' These two words may therefore be used interchangeably, and the following rendering of our text is unimpeach­able: 'Else what shall they do that are being purified for the benefit of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why, then, are they being purified for their benefit?'" "We are now ready to examine the Old Testament basic passage. In the light of the preceding elucidation the basic passage will not be diffi­cult to find; it is, of course, Lev. 12,6: 'And when the days of her puri­fying are fulfilled for a son or for a daughter.' The entire chapter con· stitutes 'the law for her that hath born a male or a female,' v.7. The law was this: When a Jewish woman had given birth to a boy, she was Levit­ically unclean for seven days; when she had given birth to a girl, her time of uncleanness was twice as long. . .. This was her own personal uncleanness. Upon the expiration of these seven or fourteen days she should continue in the blood of her purifying thirty-three days, or sixty­six days, respectively. Why that? Our basie passage answers: 'For a son or for a daughter.' . .. The preceding elaboration shows how the little children were l'eceived into the Old Testament kingdom of God. A vague notion seems to be abroad that the little girls became members of that kingdom in some unaccountable manner, nobody knows how, and that they were permitted to grow up without any purification whatever. ... Lev. 12, however, sets forth the true state of affairs. A little Jewish boy was purified in the following manner: more directly by the rite of circum­cision on the eighth day and also, more indirectly, through thirty-three days of purification on the part of his mother. A little Jewish girl was purified, more indirectly, through sixty-six days of purification on the part of her mother .... Let us suppose a case like the following: AJewish mother gives birth to a girl. For two weeks the mother is unclean on her own account. On the fifteenth day she begins to undergo purification in behalf of her little baby girl. On the twentieth day the girl dies. For sixty days more the mother must now continue to be purified in behalf of the child that has already died, in other words, continue to be BAPTIZED FOR THE DEAD. But why? If the dead rise not, why were some mothers in Israel then purified in behalf of the dead? . .. If people who have re­ceived what we ordinarily call Baptism, namely, the New Testament Sac­rament, Christian Baptism, -if such people, following their own foolish 624 Theologica.l Observer. -Ritd)lid)'3eit\lefd)id)m~~. notions, should submit to Baptism the second time in behalf of those that had died unbaptized, or if candidates for Baptism should choose to be bap­tized upon a Christian's grave, such practises could prove nothing con­cerning the resurrection, and Paul would never have adduced them as proofs. But when mothers in Israel, in obedience to God's command, underwent purification in behalf of their little children that had already died, the case is different. If death is the end of all, if there is no bodily resurrection and no eternal salvation, then this divine command would be meaningless. The words of our passage, though apparently so plain and simple, are filled with the glorious Gospel of the Son of God; the blessed doctrine of the resurrection from the dead can be proved from them, and the great Apostle Paul, with his wonderful insight into the divinely inspired Scriptures, was able to furnish the proof." This solution of the difficulties found in 1 Cor. 15, 29 offers puzzles rather more perplexing than the original one. The new difficulties are: Why does St. Paul not give his readers some hint tha.t he is not speaking of Baptism, but of the Levitical purification? And if he is speaking of that, why does he not make an attempt to show that the new interpreta­tion of Lev. 12 is the correct one? . .. Zahn's commentary offers this trans­lation and interpretation: "What will they who receive Baptism thereby accomplish for the dead (that is, for themselves as the dead of the future)? If the dead rise not at all, why do they receive Baptism for them?" "All in all, Luther's interpretation, which has also been adopted by modern exegetes (Vilmar, Ewald), seems to present less difficulties than the others." (Lehre und Wehre, 30, p. 414.) E. German War Guilt and Missions. -Says the Foreign Mission Oon­terenoe Bulletin of June 1, 1932, with respect to this subject: "In recent weeks a communication was received from the German Evangelical Mission Council expressing the great sense of burden under which German Chris­tians are laboring because of the statement included in the Treaty of Versailles that Germany alone was to blame for the World War. Similar communications have been sent to the National Christian Councils and missionary bodies of different countries. The Co=ittee on Missions and Governments gave careful study to the nature of the reply which should be made to this communication and corresponded with the members of the Co=ittee of Reference and Counsel. As a. result of the information received the Executive Committee at its meeting on May 19 agreed upon tb" following statement, which it has requested the secretaries to com­municate to the Mission Council of the German Evangelical Churches: "Voted that the members of the Committee of Reference and Counsel of the Foreign Missions Conference of North America acknowledge with Chris­tian understanding and sympathy the February 4, 1931, letter of the German Evangelical Mission Council addressed to the National Christian Councils, testifying to the unbearable burden unde,r which tlle German Christians feel themselves to labor because the Treaty of Versailles forced the representative of their nation to sign the declaration that Germany alone was to blame for the World War. While conscious of incompetency to deal with any of the political implications of the question, which we approach only by reason of common spiritual concern with our German brethren, the members of the Committee of Reference and Counsel take Theological Observer. -.!l'itdJHdJ=8dtgefdJidjt1idjes. 625 this opportunity of expressing the judgment that the World War was the inevitable outcome of historical national rivalries, which found expression in competitive military and naval armaments, and state their conviction that for the existence of these rivalries and their inevitable result in the World War no single nation can justly be declared solely responsible." FREDERICK BRAND. Not too Many Pastors in Presbyterian Church. -In one of our exchanges we read the following interesting statement: -"In his annual report Dr. W. C. Covert, general secretary of the Board of Christian Education of the Presbyterian Church in the U. S. A., denies that this Church is oversupplied with ministers. He gives statistics listing the net increase in the number of Presbyterian ministers in 1931 as 27; during the period from 1925 to 1930 there was a, decrease of 30, While in 1930 but 264 students for the ministry entered Presbyterian seminaries, last year 451 enrolled, and there was an increase of students for all kinds of full-time Christian service from 330 to 596. Dr. Covert holds that this increase is due to passing conditions in the economic realm and to a return on the part of the generation to a, more serious mood. A. Methodists Insist on Ministers'> Becoming Naturalized. -Of the undue emphasis which in many Methodist circles is placed on external matters we have an instance in a resolution of the Northern New York Methodist Conference, which, when it was in session recently at Watertown, N ew York, resolved that hereafter no clergyman will be received as a member of this conference and be permitted to serve a pastorate within its confines unless he is applying for citizenship. The Ohristian Oentury, from which we take over this information, comments: -"This is new doctrine for Methodists. They are a wide-ranging folk -'the world is our parish' -and have established themselves under every flag that flies. For any of them to say, as one did at Watertown, 'I do not see how a man can preach under the flag of the United States if he is an alien,' is to repudia,te their own history. Methodist missionaries by the hundred have preached for years under other flags without dreaming that they ought to strip themselves of their American citizenship. Bishop Leonard, who presided at Watertown, was himself once a preacher in Rome, and though his term of office was not prolonged, he was in no sense a visiting clergyman. But he did not seek Italian citizenship. Bishop Nuelsen is in charge of Methodist work in Europe, and for many years he has been an influential figure in the Protestant circles of the continent. No responsible church-body has made the point against him that he is an alien. Stanley Jones is more at home in Indian Methodism than in American, but he is not disturbed in his civil allegiance either by Church or State. If this new policy is now to be applied, perhaps the Methodists will accept its logic and add a question to those asked of candidates for oversea service: 'Will you take immediate steps to become a citizen of the country to which you are sent?' We can think of no other question which would so surely quench a candidate's enthusiasm or dry up the springs of his lay support. London has had our Fort Newton, and New York has had England's Jowett; these are merely conspicuous illustrations of a thoroughly wholesome internationalism. That the Methodists, of all 40 626 Theological Observer. -.R'ir~li~~.seitgef~i~m~e!l. people, should begin to oppose it is a most curious example of ingrowing nationalism in a historically cosmopolitan Church." This rebuke is well deserved. People of superficial thinking will prob­ably be impressed by this action of the Northern New York Methodist Conference; but those who look at all sides of the question will wish that these people had pondered 1 Cor. 9, 19-23 a little more. A. Unionism in the U. L. C. -To show the extent to which certain sections of the U. L. C. are followshiping with the sects, we take over the following item from the Philadelphia Correspondence of the Ohristian Oentury: -"'A study of ten years reveals to what extent the several denomina­tions have practised comity: Baptists 100 per cent., Evangelicals 66 per cent., Lutherans (Eastern Pennsylvania, Synod -the only Lutheran group that has practised comity) 100 per cent., Methodists 86 per cent., Presby­terians 84 per cent., Reformed 100 per cent., United Presbyterians 100 per cent. We are making very splendid progress in this matter.' So declared Dr. E. A. E. Palmquist, executive secretary of the Philadelphia Federation of Churches, in his eleventh annual report at the annual dinner. 'In the area between Girard and Vine and east of Broad,' he continued, 'where there are about 52,000 people, the Protestant churches of this city are spending $106,000 a, year. They have slightly over 3,000 in membership and over 3,000 Sunday-school scholars, but they are spending enough money to give each man, woman, and child in that area more than $2 apiece each year. A subcommittee of the Committee of Comity is now working over these data to see whether we are expending too much money in this blighted area. "'After two years of faithful leadership, Dr. J. Henry Harms of the Lutheran Church of the Holy Communion retired as president of the federa­tion. His successor is Dr. Charles E. Schaeffer, president of the general synod and secretary of the board of home missions of the Reformed Church. Dr. Palmquist was reelected executive secretary and Miss Mabel Butter­worth assistant.''' Here is evidence for one of the serious indictments that members of the Synodical Conference direct against. the U. L. C. A. "The Christian Unity League of North America is meeting in this city on May 4 and 5. All ministers and laymen who are interested in bringing a,bout. a closer relationship between the various denominations of this country are espe"ially invited to attend this conference. A leading feature of these meetings will be a Communion service in which represen­tatives of many denomina,tions will participate." (The Ohurch at Work, St. Louis, April 29, 1932.) The leading feature was enacted, according to the program -Episcopalians, Campbellites, Presbyterians, etc., met at the Lord's Table -and left it as Episcopalians, Campbellites, Presbyterians, etc. If these men are justified in joining in the intimate and sacred communion of the Lord's Supper, they are committing a, crime in remaining separate in opposing organizations. If they are bound in conscience to maintain separate denominat,ions, they are committing a crime to fellowship and commune with errorists. This is the reaction of the Living Ohurch, of May 14, 1932: "The Christian Unity League is up to its tricks again. This organization seems Theological Observer. -.!titd)!id).,(lettoefd)id)tHd)es. 627 to ha,ve an inordinate desire to hold celebrations of the Holy Co=union in Anglican churches, in direct defiauce of the cauou law of the Church. Last time the prompt action of the Bishop of New York headed it off. This year the celebration was held in Christ Ohurch Cathedral, St. Louis. The celebrant, we understand, was a, Methodist minister, assisted by clergymen of various denominations, including the bishop and the bishop coadjutor of the diocese as well as the deau of the cathedral. The rector and vestry of at least one parish in St. !,Quis had the courage to protest against this service, and we honor them for it. . ." The Church is not going to collapse because of this action, which is wholly contrary to the spirit of the Church's laws, though it may be technically legal since the service was not performed in a 'congregation' of this Church. . .. But what amazes us and causes us sorrow is that Christian men should be so misguided as to think they can build such a sacred thing as Christian unity upon a foundation of evasion of the law and order of the Church, of trampling upon principles that she holds most dear, and of defiance of her constituted authority. Such steps lead not to unity, but to anarchy." We condemn the tactics of the unionists because of their disregard of the divine law, Rom. 16, 17. But aside from that the point the Living Churoh makes is well taken. It shows up the unionists in their true color. The Christian Unity League, headed by Dr. Peter Ainslee (Camp­bellite) of Baltimore, aims at the establishment of "The United Church of the United States." Its "Reconciliation Pact" signed by more than 2,000 ministers of various faiths, declares: "We will strive to bring the laws and practises of our several communions into conformity with this prin­ciple (the equality of an Christians before God), so that no Ohristian shaH be denied membership in any of our churches nor the privilege of participation in the observance, of the Lord's Supper and that no Christian minister shall be denied the freedom of our pulpits by reason of differences in forms of ordination." That, does not touch the point" The point is the difference in faith. And Rom. 16, 17 gives point to that. E. Church Union via Foreign Mission. -The unionists imagine that a union of the various denominations planted in the Foreign Mission field can be more easily effected than a union here at, home and hope that the union effected there will react favorably upon the Church in the West. Dr. W. Luetgert some years ago expressed this idea in Reich Gottes und Weltgeschiohte thus: "As Paul had no desire to obliterate the difference between thel Gentile convert and the Jewish convert, so we do not endeavor to make of the heathen either Calvinists or Lutherans. We want to make Christians of them and nothing else. We hope that mission will hasten the time when there will be one fold and one Shepherd. This condition will not be brought about through the conversion of one denomination to the other one. It win come to pass only in this way, that all are converted to Christianity .. ,. An independent Asiatic or African Christian Church will certainly react on the European Christian Church and free it from the hampering weight which the trend of European history has placed upon it." The World's Committee of the Y. M. C. A. gives vent to similar ideas in its Information Se1"vices, which the Lutheran Companion of May 7 quotes with approval. "Among the facts the 'International Review of Missions' 628 Theological Observer. -.ltttd)ttd)=.8eitgefd)id}tlid)e!L reports few are more encouraging than the general movement which brings the churches closer together in Japan, Korea, China, Philippine Islands, and India, and even to unite. A conference having in view ecclesiastical unity took place for the whole of India from November 7-9, 1931, under the chairmanship of Bishop Azariah. We give an extract from the resolu­tions of this conference, published in the National Ohristian Oounoil Review: ... 'That, since the barriers that keep the members of the various churches from a fuller and more effective realization of their essential unity are the result of the conflicting types of church policy that have grown up in the 'iVest, it is imperative that these differences should not be perpetua ted in India.' " We do not see how these men are going to prevent the differences which separate the church, those touching doctrine as well as polity, from being perpetuated in the foreign field. The heresies which have caused the division in the Church are not the product of the European and American racial character, but of the flesh, which presents the same characteristics throughout the world. The flesh of the Indian Christian is identical with the flesh of the English Christian. The carnal mind is essentially Pelagian. It developed, in Europe, the Ca,tholic doc­trine of work-righteousness. It will develop the same heresy in India, even though men succeed in placing an embargo on all Catholic literature. You need not tell the Chinamen anything of Zwingli and Calvin, but when he begins to study the doctrine of the Lord's Supper, his flesh is going to produce Zwinglian thoughts. When Paul warned the elders of Ephesus that "grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock," he did not look for these false teachers to come from Europe or America, but informed them that "of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, tD draw away disciples after them." Acts 20, 30. Even if these men had not already perpetua,ted the differences by establishing sectarian churches in India and China, the self-righteous, rationalistic, hierarchical flesh of the Indian would inevitably produce the same errors and seek to perpetuate them. And the unionists will be lending their aid to that end. For the resolutions continue: "That, in order to promote the cause of union, the conference urges that definite steps be taken to associate members of the various churches in united evangelistic efforts and other forms of Christian service; that, since such cooperation will reveal the need for closer asso­ciation in worship, the churches should give opportunity for, and make endeavor to promote, common acts of worship, including the partaking together of the Sacrament of Holy Communion; that definite opportunities be provided for the interchange of ministries in the preaching of the Word and other forms of service." That is certainly a heroic mBthod of treating the malady. In order to remove the differences, ignore them! And that is criminal advice. That missionary is committing a crime against the native Christians who asks and instructs them not tD mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which they have learned from Scripture; but to receive them and fellowship them. See Rom. 16, 17. Happily these instructions of the unionist missionary will not ue followed by all. The new man of the native Christian is of the same nature as that of the European Christian and will urge him to follow Paul ra,ther than the unionist. We may add that the unionists are not Theological Observer. -.Ritd)Hd)"8eiti1efd)id)tlidJe~. 629 true to their own principle. 'fheir principle is that the Christianity to be planted in the foreign field must be the original, apostolic Christianity, trimmed of the excrescences that developed in the course of the Western history. That is well, but here they are busy eng-rafting on the young Church the same malignant excrescence that has been so assiduously nur­tured by, and that has so grievously sapped the strength of, the older Church -unionism. E. Why Not Be ConsistentI' -We read in an exchange that Rev. G. Shubert Frye, pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Youngstown, New York, several weeks ago, when Colonel Morrow of Fort Niagara in his church had delivered a lecture which is characterized as "decidedly militaristic and in the mind of the pastor somewhat pagan and antichristian in its philosophy," instead of waiting for the singing of taps and "America," as provided in the program, went to the platform and said: ... "I am asked to pronounce the henediction. In the course of this evening's remarks we have heard some of the basic principles of Christ challenged and defied. I am not going to speak; my time for that is Sunday mornings. But as a minister of Christ I cannot and will not pronounce the-benediction. The meeting is dismissed." We are told the people left the church slowly and silently. We say, Why not be consistent? Why does this minister re­main in communion with a Church where by certain members some of the basic principles of Christianity are denied, a body which belongs to the Federal Council of Churches and thus fellowships theological leaders who have little left of Christianity except the name? If insistence on prin­ciple and truth is proper on the one hand, why not on the other? A. Why Were the Early Colonies Anti-Catholic in Sentimentl'­The book of Michael Williams, entitled The Shadow of the Pope, is causing a good deal of discussion in the religious press. It is granted that what he says about intolerance manifested toward Roman Catholics in the American colonies is true; but Protestant reviewers point out that he is not telling the whole story. W. E. Garrison, in the Ohristian Oentury, sub­mits some very illuminating remarks as he evaluates Mr. Williams's book. He says: "A completely fair version of that story must include some ade­quate description of that Roman Catholicism toward which these early Protestant Americans were so regrettably intolerant. It was a religion which throughout the world, wherever it had power to do so, was doing its utmost by force and violence to stamp out every other form of faith. Plenty of lies had been told about it, and the truth had been embellished by a copious growth of legend; but the truth itself was plenty. The plain fact is that Roman Catholics in countries predominantly Protestant were not looked upon as merely the harmless holders of certain peculiar theo­logical doctrines, but as the local representatives of a world·power which granted no liberty where it had power to deny it. When, for example, Maryland, after some years of anti-Catholic violence, established the Church of England in 1694, it was not without knowing that the Roman Catholic clergy had inq.uced Louis XIV to repeal the Edict of Nantes nine years before and that French Protestants were even then fleeing to escape in­tolerable conditions. When the first anti-Catholic organizations began to be formed in the 1830's and '40's, the excited citizens could remind their 630 Theological Observer. -~itcf)1icf)~.8eit(lefcf)icf)tli~ell. critics that the Pope who had died in 1829 had condemned the whole idea of religious liberty in unmeasured terms. When the 'great wave of re­ligious strife began its course' in 1887 with the organization of the Amer­ican Patriotic Association, which became the A. P. A., it did not require a very long memory to recall that Leo XIII's encyclical in 1885 had com­plained that the 'lamentable rage for innovation' which led to popular government brings it about that 'the Catholic religion is allowed a standing in civil society equal only to societies alien to it'; and when the 'bigots' were protesting against the nomination of a Catholic in 1924 and the elec­tion of one in 1928, the ink was scarcely dry on the books of Father Ryan in which he was hooting at 'the theory of indiscriminate and universal toleration' as absurd." It will be well to have facts like those here pre­sented always at hand in order to give the Roman Catholic complaint of persecution its true setting. A. Romanes and Christianity. -In an article, published in the Living Ohuroh, on the recently deceased Bishop Gore we find the following inter­esting paragraph (the writer speaks of the time when he was a guest of Gore's in 1894) : -"A recent dramatic experience of his created in us a keen interest in him. We were inquirers into the mutual relations of science and re­ligion. We looked at Gore as one who had experience in this with a very notable 'case,' of which we hoped he would talk. He could not be drawn to say a word about it. Gore was then forty-one. Eighteen years before, the eminent biologist and friend of Darwin, George J. Romanes, had said: 'When at times I think of the appalling contrast between the hallowed glory of the Creed which once was mine and the lonely mystery of ex­istence as now I find it, I shall ever feel it impossible to avoid the sharpest pa.llg of which my nature is susceptible. 'T'bpTe is 9. t.errible truth in those words of Hamilton, -philosophy having become a meditation, not merely of death, but of annihilation, -the precept "Know thyself" has become transformed into the terrific oracle to Oedipus, "Mayest thou ne'er know the truth of what thou art 1" , " The writer informs us that Romanes wrote these words in an anony­mous work called A Oandid Examination of Theism, arriving at altogether negative, that is, agnostic, conclusions. But the sequel of the story makes one reJOIce. Gore, so we are told, worked on this unbeliever, with the result that, when Romanes died, he had been received back into the Church. A. II. Auslattb. frber ~crj1djernng. ~m ,,@5bangefifdjdMljerifdjen Si'irdjenl1Iatt filr @5iibamerifa" beroffentridjt ciner ber !Rebafteure, \{Srof. \{Saul @5dje!p, cinen ~rtHer iiber ,,?Eerfidjerung", ber nadj unf erer lmeinung ben redjten Si'ur£l f±euert uno lJie SHippen redjt£l unb rinf£l bermeibet. 9Cadj einem \{Sara~ grapljen iiber bie berfdjiebenen ~rten ber IBerfidjernng beljanbert \{Srofeffor @5djelp bie {Srage, DO IBerfidjerung ein ®Iiicf£lfpieI, dne .2otterie jei. @5r fdjreiot: ,,130 ift e£l oft ljingeftelli tDorben. $!)erjenige, meldjer berfidjern Iaf3t, berried, menn ba£l ~au£l nidjt abbrennt. )Brenni e£l ab, 10 ljat bie ®efeIIfdjaft berIoren. )Bet .2eben£lberfidjernng aaljIt bie \{Serfon jebe£l ~aljr iljren @5infat. @5tirbt fie bie£l ~aljr nidjt, fD ljat fie berIoren unb Die ®e" Theological Observer. -.!flrdj1idj,geitgejcI)id)t1idjes. 631 fellfdjaft gewonnen. VIiemanb weit, wie bie @)adje ablaufen Wirb. ~er ;;rob entfdjeibet. ZSft ba£l nidjt ein @)piefen mit ber @nabenaeit? ;;rro~~ bem e£l bie£l au fein fdjeint, ift bennodj ein groter llnterfdjieb borl~anben. !Bei ber 20Herie in mio @ranbe bo @)u! entfdjeibet bie lmafdjine mit ben biefen Shtgeln an ber mua bo~ ~nbrabal:i in ~llrto ~fegre, bei !Berfidje~ rungen ratt man ben Si:onhaft afJIaufen. !Bet ber !Berfidjerung wirb bon born~erein feftgefegt, bat man tuillig if±, audj bie ganae @)umme ber !Ber. fidjerung ein5uaa~ren. ~ie jffiilligfeit, bie @)umme, tueIdje man am mer~ fidjerungl:ifumme er~im, bo11ftiinbig einiluaa~ren, ift ba ober fann wenig~ ften~ ba fein. !Bet ber 2ot±erie befte~t nidjt cine foldje !Berpf!idjtung. !Bet ber 20tterie fann einer immer flJielen unb befonunt nie einen ~rei£l; bei ber 2eben§berfidjerung a. \8, ift bon born~erein bie 6umme feftgefe~t, Me aul:ibeaafjIt wirb. \8et ber 2o±±erie fann man Wieber~ort gewinnen, bei ber 2eben§berjidjerung nidjt." ~~ ~rgument berer, bte Hnfl:i in ben ®raben fallen, merfidjerung jei ein jffied ber Eiebe, tueij't er energifdj ab. merjidjerung" ift ein @efdjiift, bal:i faIt beredjne± toorben ift unb rudjidjgro§ burdjgefU~rt wirb". ~en @)~ ,,~n nub fUr fidj finb 2eben§berfidjerungen nidjt funbIidj" fUljrt er fll am;: ,,~§ liitt fidj nidjt fagen, baB berjenige llnredjt tut, ber fein &Jam; bor iYeuer berjidjern riitt. VIaiiitlidj ift babel botaU§gejeJJt, oat fein ~igen. tum nidjt au ~odj eingefdjiiJ;lt Wirb. ~ie !Berjidjerung§fumme batf ben jffierl be§ ~igentum§ nidjt frberfteigen. ~udj dne 2ebenl:iberfidjerung ift nidjt au berwerfen, wenn bie betreffenbe ~erj on Wirflidj WiIlenl:i ift, bie !Bcrfidjerung§~ fumme nadj unb nadj boll ein5Uaa~Ien." ~§ fdjiirft ber ~rlifer nun aber wel±er ein, bat merfidjerungen fe~t gefii~r!idj finb. "jffiie na~e Iiegt a. \8. bei ciner 2eben§berjidjerung ber @e~ banfe, ball man fur wenig einbeaa~rte§ @eTh bier ouriid'er~anen mlidjte. ~ann ift e~ ein @md'~fpiel unb gegen b~ neunte @ebot. . .. jffier aber nur wenig aafjlen, aber bier empfangen modjte, begeljrt feine§ VIiidjften &Jab unb @ut. ~ai3 ift @)iinbe." ~~ Wirb bann batauf ljingetuiefen, bat 2eben~berfidjerung feidjt ben Si:reinglauben nii~rl unl> ferner audj eine merfudjung au lmanunon~l>ienft ift. ~§ liemerft bet ~rmel nodj, bat !Berjidjerung oft 3U lmorb unb \8tanb~ ftiftung berleite±. :Sum @)djlut fagt ~rofeffot 6djelp: "jffienn tuir be~~ ~alb audj fagen miiffen, baB aile ~rten bon merfidjerungen nidjt an unb fUr fidj 6iinbe finb, ein