Three chief questions were raised by this unbelief of the Jews. (1) Did this unbelief not cancel the early ]iromises made by God ? (2) Did this unbelief not defeat God's jil.an ? (3) Could God's salvation be complete apart from the Jewish people? These questions are dealt with by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans in the sym)iathetic method that might be expected from one whose pride in bis ancient lineage was never concealed, and whose faith was clear and enlightened as well as intense. To the three-fold problem St. Paul made reply.
(I) The promises of God did not depend upon man, for God would keep His word whatever man might do. (jod would be true and faithful however His people might be convicted of falsehood ami unbelief (Ro 3''). (2) God's ])urpose was both narrower and wider than was commonly supposed. In all the Jewish history the jiuriiosc of tiod was to redeem some within the Hebrew race to be the means of blessing, and even in the Christian era, as of old, there was a 'renmant' that believed and shared in the purposes of God. So too God's p\npose was wider than was supposed. From the earliest times His jilan looked forward to embracing the Gentiles within its scope, and through the very unbelief and defection of the Jews there had come a marvel- lous fullilment of this wider purpose. ' Bj' their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles' (11"). (3) St. Paul believed with all his heart that the Kingdom of God would not be complete apart from the Jews. This was so far true even in the Apostolic Age. ' Even so then at this jiresent time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace' (11°). But in the future there would be a glorious return of the chosen people. St. Paul re- l)resented the Jews as being subjects of unbelief and disobedience, so that in the gracious purpose of (iod thev might be objects of tlie Divine mercy. The Most lligh would unfold all the width of His .salvation when after their ])eriod of darkness the Jewish people would come forth into the light.
628
UNBELIEF
UNCOKRUPTNESS
Then would come the final consummation, and tlie receiving of them would be truly ' life from the dead' (11").
The same problem of the unbelief of the Jews was treated in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The discussion in this Epistle centred round the rest of God into which God Himself entered after the work of creation, and to which He called His people. This rest was oflered to Israel in the time of Moses and was not realized by them tliroujih unbelief. The mere entrance into Canaan under Joshua was no true fultilment of the promise, for ' if Israel had believed they would have entered in, the Rest would have been appropriated, antl God's gracious design satisfied, and a Rest would have been no more "left" for others' (A. B. Davidson, The Epistle to the Hebrews, Edinburgh, n.d., p. 98). When their unbelief left this rest still open, it was oH'ered again by God in tlie new revelation that He made. His voice was heard through His Son in the end of those days in which He had spoken to the early believers on to the time when He should come again. Thus the promise that was unrealized in the Old Covenant was renewed in the New Covenant. These conclusions are largely the same as those reached by St. Paul — that un- belief marked the Jews in all their history, and that their unbelief opened the. way to the receiving of the Gentiles. But there is not in this Epistle the forecast of the glorious future yet in store when Israel would turn again, only an insistence upon the need of giving diligence to enter into that rest, ' that no man fall after the same example of dis- obedience' (He 4").
It is worthy of note that in all these apostolic discussions unbelief and disobedience are almost interchangeable terms. Both words, airLaTla. and d-!T(i6eia, are derived from the same root and express the intimate connexion that is found between taith and life. What is thus suggested by the use of these words is corroborated by the general apostolic teaching, where unbelief is ascribed to the harden- ing of the heart (Ac 19'), to blindness caused by the god of this world (2 Co 4'- ■*), to the evil working of the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2'- ^), to the corrupt heart that believes a lie (2 Th 2"- '-). Hence we read of the evil heart of unbelief, and of the deceitfulness of this sin (He 3'-- "). As unbelief sprang from moral causes it could be removed best by the declaration of the gospel wherein Jesus Christ was made known as meeting the moral and spiritual needs of life. It is for this reason especially that St. Paul magnified ' pro- phesying' in contrast to ' speaking with tongues.' He suggested that an assembly where all were speaking with this strange utterance would seem to an outsider like a gathering of madmen, and would confirm any unbeliever in his unbelief, whereas the general practice of prophesying would reach the reason and the heart of any unbelievers who happened to be present, and would lead such to confess that God was truly present in this Christian assembly (1 Co 14---'). From such a passage as this it may be inferred that the apostles distinguished between those who were unbelievers because Christ had not been presented to them fully and those who had resisted the truth when it was made known to them and who had openly denied the Lord. The latter class, who ' denied that Jesus was the Christ,' seemed so base in the eyes of the apostles that St. John characterized it as Antichrist (1 Jn 2^-), and it seemed so hopeless of change that the same Apostle placed the un- believing among the vilest, whose 'part shall be in the lake that bumeth with fire and brimstone ' (Rev 21'). One phase of unbelief caused no little perplexity to the apostles, viz. unbelief among those who had professed their faith in Jesus as