Through a Glass, Barclay

When I was a teenager, a classmate gave me a set of commentaries which had belonged to her grandfather vicar. They were written by William Barclay, who wrote in a lucid, easy-to-read style, that even a fifteen-year-old me was able to comprehend with pleasure. He brought additional information to the text, and supplied a knowledge of first-century customs and practices which provided further understanding of the given section. Yet every now and again, he would write something which was dismissive, especially in the context of one of Jesus’ miracles. It was clear that Professor Barclay, for all his learning and background knowledge, was not a believer. He rejected the deity of Jesus Christ, denied the virgin birth, decried the miracle stories and thought everyone went to heaven, regardless of accepting the Gospel. He belittled the doctrine of the atonement and breezily promulgated Darwinian theories of evolution. I eventually threw his books away. Whatever helpful analysis he brought to the text was cancelled by his invidious doubts and denials. Two years ago, I was offered two more sets. My instinct was to refuse, but then I thought that by accepting, I should successfully take them out of circulation. One went into the recycling, the other I put on my back shelves, reserved for occasional, if carefully guarded, consultation.

Many religious groups and leaders may share insightful and incisive commentary on the Biblical text. The Watchtower organisation, Salt Lake's religious hierarchy, Prosperity teachers, Liberals and Romanists may all highlight this chapter and wax lyrically about that verse. Yet they all deny the scriptures’ overall message, which is the Gospel of Grace. Not all bottles of poison offer immediate death, and some may even taste pleasant on the tongue: but the end result is always the same.

In 1978, the learned and erudite Professor Barclay was summoned to appear before his Maker, and at that very moment, he stopped being a universalist.