Dispelling Confusion

From a number of sources it has been evident that brethren in some states of Australia are concerned at the danger of "Andrewism" emerging within the Central Fellowship.

We find such forebodings to be somewhat puzzling.

Though the doctrinal position which was espoused by the late J.J. Andrew is still maintained in certain quarters outside the Central Fellowship, we find it difficult to ascertain how current warnings against "Andrewism" can be associated within the Central Fellowship. We have yet to knowingly meet any member of the Central Fellowship who has promoted the doctrinal position which has become known as "Andrewism" — particularly in relation to the question of Christ being accountable to God, legally and/or morally, because of his human nature.

There may be brethren who have become genuinely concerned over this matter. However, in the absence of any evidence to warrant anxiety, we find it difficult to understand why concern should be expressed at the possibility of such teaching affecting the Central Fellowship in Australia.

Some of these fears may result from unclear statements. When cloudy language or ill-defined terminology are circulated, an element of confusion may arise in the minds of some.

For example, we have heard the claim: "Christ had nothing to be forgiven for..." Granted. But why pose such a pointless question when no brother of our acquaintance promotes an erroneous view in this regard?

It has been said: "For our need Christ came into the world..." Again, there is surely no dispute over this. But how did he provide for "our need"? What was required of him to fulfil the Father's purpose for the salvation of the human race? When this aspect of the question is omitted, or not adequately defined, the mere statement that "for our need Christ came into the world" explains nothing.

Again, to say that "our Lord was involved in all that he did for us" is not an incorrect statement. It is, however, totally inadequate to define the truth of the matter.

A view has been expressed that if Christ had to "offer" for himself as well as for us, two separate sacrifices would have been necessary — as though, according to our nature, Christ had a separate need quite apart from our own. How such a line of reasoning could be devised is difficult to understand, in view of the fact that Paul sets forth the truth of the matter with direct clarity: "For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once
when he offered up himself..." (Heb. 7:26-27).

Not being a convicted sinner, Christ required no sacrifice for sins committed by him, as we have stressed again and again in the columns of this Magazine. However, so far as his nature was concerned, his "need" was no different from our own.
Christ's character was perfect. His nature was not. Why not clearly state this, and accept the consequences of such a truth, in the inevitable doctrinal conclusions which arise therefrom?

There is every possibility that confusion may result when doubtful terms are used. For example, a Christadelphian publication contained this statement: "Although the word 'flesh' is often used in Scripture pejoratively, because in all mankind with the exception of Christ it has resulted in sin, flesh is not of itself condemned..." (Our italics). This statement is not only incorrect, it presents a view which would meet with the full approval of Nazarenes and other upholders of the "Clean Flesh" philosophy. The Scriptures do not teach this; neither did the Pioneers. The subject of the Atonement should not be treated with such disturbingly inaccurate terminology, which can only breed confusion rather than establish the truth in clarity. Such views are finding sympathy in some areas in Australia, and it is not difficult to understand the reason for this.

What is required is a return to the clear and adequate definitions used uncompromisingly by brethren of earlier generations, particularly the Pioneers.

Claims are being made concerning the teaching of the Pioneer brethren. However, is it not preferable to let the Pioneers speak for themselves, in their own words?

For instance, observe the clear and unclouded language of Bro. Roberts:

But the sacrificial blood was applied to everything as well — Aaron and his sons included (see Lev. 8:14-15; 23-24). An atonement had to be made by the shedding and the sprinkling of blood for and upon them all (Lev. 16:33). As Paul remarks, "almost all things by the law are purged with blood" (Heb. 9:22). Now all these things were declared to be "patterns of things in the heavens", which it is admitted on all hands converged upon and have their substance in Christ. There must, therefore, be a sense in which Christ (the antitypical Aaron, the antitypical altar, the antitypical mercy-seat, the antitypical everything), must not only have been sanctified by the action of the antitypical oil of the Holy Spirit, but purged by the antitypical blood of his own sacrifice.

This conclusion is supposed to be weakened by the statement of Lev. 16:16, that the atonement for the holy place, altar, etc., was to be made "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins". That is, it is argued from this, that the holy things would have had no uncleanness in themselves apart from the uncleanness of the children of Israel. This must be granted, but it must also be recognized that because the children of Israel were sinful and polluted, the holy things were reckoned as having contracted defilement in having been fabricated by them and through remaining in their midst. This cannot be denied on a full survey of the testimony. They were ceremonially unclean , because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and had to be cleansed by the holy oil and the sacrificial blood before they were acceptable in the Mosaic service.

Now, this is part of the Mosaic figure. There must be an antitype to it. What was it? The holy things, we know, in brief, are Christ. He must, therefore, have been the •subject of a personal cleansing in the process by which he opened the way of sanctification for his people. If the typical holy things contracted defilement from connection with a sinful congregation, were not the antitypical (Christ) holy things in a similar state, through derivation on his mother's side from a sinful race? If not, how came they to need purging with his own "better sacrifice"? (Heb. 9:23).

Great difficulty is experienced by various elasses of thinkers in receiving this view.

Needlessly so, it should seem. There is first the express declaration that the matter stands so: "it was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these (Mosaic sacrifices); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these" (Heb. 9:23). "It was of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer" (8:3). "By reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins" (5:3). "By his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption" (for us,is an addition inconsistent with the middle voice of the verb employed, which imports a thing done by one to one's own self) (9:12).

There was next the necessity that it should be so. The word "necessity", it will be perceived, occurs frequently in the course of Paul's argument. The necessity arises from the position in which men stood as regards the law of sin and death, and the position in which the Lord stood as their redeemer from this position. The position of men was that they were under condemnation to die because of sin, and that not their own sin, in the first instance, but ancestral sin at the beginning. The forgiveness of personal offences is the prominent feature of the apostolic proclamation, because personal offences are the greater barrier. Nevertheless, men are mortal because of sin, quite independently of their own transgressions. Their redemption from this position is a work of mercy and forgiveness, yet a work to be effected in harmony with the righteousness of God, that He might be just while justifying those believing in the Redeemer. It is so declared (Rom. 3:26). It was not to be done by setting aside the law of sin and death, but by righteously nullifying it in one who should obtain this redemption in his own right, and who should be authorized to offer to other men a partnership in his right, subject to required conditions (of their conformity to which, he should be appointed sole judge). . .

We see Jesus born of a woman, and therefore a partaker of the identical nature condemned to death in Eden. We see him a member of imperfect human society, subject to toil and weakness, dishonour and sorrow, poverty and hatred, and all the other evils that have resulted from the advent of sin upon the earth. We see him down in the evil which he was sent to cure: not outside of it, not untouched by it, but in it, to put it away. "He was made perfect through suffering" (Heb. 2:10), but he was not perfect till he was through it. He was saved from death (5:7), but not until he died. He obtained redemption (Heb. 9:12), but not until his own blood was shed.

That statement that he did these things "for us" has blinded many to the fact that he did them "for himself" first — without which, he could not have done them for us, for it was by doing them for himself that he did them for us. He did them for us only as we may become part of him, in merging our individualities in him by taking part in his death, and putting on his name and sharing his life afterwards. He is, as it were, a new centre of healthy life, in which we must become incorporate before we can be saved.
The antitype of the cleansing of the holy things with blood is manifest when we look at Christ as he now is, and contrast him with what he was . . . What lies between the one state and the other? His own death and resurrection. Therefore, by these, he has been purified, and no one else has been so purified as yet. Any one else delivered will be delivered by him, as the result of what he did in himself.

If there was one injunction of the law more strenuous than another, it was that contact with death in any form, however remote or indirect, was defiling. Even to touch a bone made a man unclean: or to be touched by a man unclean from such a cause had the same effect. We have the perfect antitype in the Lord born of a death-bound woman, and therefore made subject to death: it was "that he, by the grace of God, might taste death for every man"; but he was the first to taste, in the process of redemption from it. He was a "body prepared" for the work: prepared as to its power to evolve sinlessness of character, but prepared also as to subjection to that death which it was designed to abolish (2 Tim. 1:10). In him were combined the anti-typical "holy things" requiring atonement, "because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel and because of their transgressions in all their sins". . . The statement remains in its undiminished force that "God sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for (as an offering for) sin condemned sin in the flesh". It is, in fact, a complete and coherent statement of what was accomplished in the death of Christ, and a perfect explanation of the reason Why he first came in the flesh, and of the reason why

John the apostle insisted so strenuously on the maintenance of the doctrine that he had so come in the flesh. Possessing sinful flesh was no sin to him, who kept it under perfect control, and "did always those things that pleased the Father". At the same time, being the sinful flesh derived from the condemned transgressors of Eden, it admitted of sin being publicly condemned in him, without any collision with the claims of his personal righteousness, which were to be met by an immediate and glorious resurrection . . . Jesus did not come into the world as an individual, but as a representative, though an individual. In this sense, he came "not for himself", but for others, though he was included in the coming. And it was to carry out Divine objects towards all. As he said, "1 came not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me". He speaks of the work which the Father had given him to do. This work was to establish salvation by forgiveness, but forgiveness on conditions, and these conditions involved the declaration of the Father's righteousness in the public condemnation of sin in its own flesh in the person of a guiltless possessor of that flesh. Paul declares it was so, and controversy really ends with his words.

We may appear to have wandered far away from the sacrificial blood sprinkled on the sanctuary and the altar, and the laver, and on Aaron "to make an atonement for them". Not really have we done so. The operation was a type of God's work in Christ, and it helps us to understand that work rightly, and especially in that one aspect of it which the doctrine of human immortality has made it so difficult for moderns to receive, viz., that Christ himself was included in the sacrificial work which he did "for us". "For himself that it might be for us", for how otherwise could we have obtained redemption if it had not first come into his possession, for us to become joint heirs of? . . . Christ partook of this nature to deliver it from death, as Paul teaches in Heb. 2:14, and other places: "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil". Understanding by the devil, the hereditary death-power that has reigned among men by Adam through sin, we may understand how Christ, who took part in the death-inheriting nature, destroyed the power of death by dying and rising. We then understand how "He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself". We may also understand how "our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed" (Rom. 6:6), and how he "died unto sin once", but now liveth unto God, to die no more (verses 9-10).

All of which enables us to understand why the typical holy things were purified with sacrificial blood, and why the high priest, in his typical and official capacity had to be touched with blood as well as anointed with the holy oil before entering upon his work. When we say, as some in their reverence for Christ prefer to say, that the death of Christ was not for himself but only for us, they destroy all these typical analogies, and in truth, if their view could prevail, they would make it impossible that it could be for us at all: for it only operates "for us" when we unite ourselves with him in whom, as the firstborn, it had its first effect. Law of Moses pp. 170-179.

We feel it opportune and appropriate to conclude this series of articles by clearly stating, in summary, those things we believe and those things we do not believe.

We Do Not Believe

*  Andrewism.
* That Jesus Christ was a sinner, guilty of moral transgression.
* That Christ required Atonement, in the sense of "forgiveness" or "reconciliation" for his nature.
* That the word "Atonement" means "at-one-ment" or "forgiveness" or "reconciliation".
* That Christ bore the moral and/ or legal guilt of Adam's sin.
* That Christ was alienated from his Father because of his nature, or for any reason.
* That "Jesus never offered any sacrifice for his own human nature" (J. Bell. See The Christadelphian, Sept. 1931, p. 415).

We Do Believe

* The eleven-point summary concerning the Atonement, as set forth in the words of Bro. Roberts (The Christadelphian, Sept. 1896, pp. 33941), under the heading:

The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ

1.—That death entered the World of mankind by Adam's disobedience. —
"By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin" (Rom. 5:12). "In (by or through) Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:22). "Through the offence of one many are dead" (Rom. 5:15).

2.—That death came by decree extraneously to the nature bestowed upon Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.—"God made man in his own image ... a living soul (a body of life) ... very good" (Gen. 1:27; 2:7; 1:31). "Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife... unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen. 3:17,19).

3.—Since that time, death has been a bodily law— "The body is dead because of sin" (Rom. 8:10). "The law of sin in my members ... the body of this death" (Rom. 7:23,24). "This mortal ... we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened" (1 Cor. 15:53;2Cor.5:4). "Havingthesentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God who raiseth the dead" (2 Cor. 1:9).

4.—The human body is therefore a body of death requiring redemption — "Waiting for the adoption, to wit the redemption of our body" (Rom. 8:23). "He shall change our vile body that it may be fashioned like unto His own glorious body" (Phil. 3:21). "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:24). "This mortal (body) must put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:53).

5.—That the flesh resulting from the condemnation of human nature to death because of sin, has no good in itself, but requires to be illuminated from the outside — "In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 7:18). "Sin dwelleth in me" (Rom. 7:20). "The law of sin which is in my members" (Rom. 7:23). "Every good and perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights" (Jas. 1:17). "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts" (Matt. 15:19). "He that soweth to the flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption"
(Gal. 6:8). "Put off the old man which is corrupt, according to the deceitful lusts" (Eph. 4:22).

6.—That God's method for the return of sinful man to favour required and appointed the putting to death of man's condemned and evil nature in a representative man of spotless character, whom he should provide, to declare and uphold the righteousness of God, as the first condition of restoration, that he might be just while justifying the unjust, who should believingly approach through him in humility, confession, and reformation. — "God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh" (Rom. 8:3). "Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same, that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is, the devil" (Heb. 2:14). "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body to the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24). "Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed" (Rom. 6:6). "He was tempted in all points like as we are, yet without sin" (Heb. 4:15). "Be of good cheer, Ihave overcome the World" (Jhn. 16:33). "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God, to declare, I say, at this time his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:26).

7.—That the death of Christ was by God's own appointment, and not by human accident, though brought about by human instrumentality. — "He that spared not His own Son, butdelivered him up for us all" (Rom. 8:32). "Him being delivered by the determinate council and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" (Acts 2:23). "Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together for to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done" (Acts 4:27). "No man taketh it — my life — from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father" (John 10:18).

8.—That the death of Christ was not a mere martyrdom, but an element in the process of reconciliation — You that sometimes were alienated in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled in the body of his flesh through death" (Col. 1:21). "When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son" (Rom. 5:10). "He was wounded for our transgressions: He was bruised for our iniquity: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). "1 lay down my life for my sheep" (John 10:15). "Having therefore boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us through the veil, that is to say his flesh, let us draw near" (Heb. 10:20).

9.—That the shedding of his blood was essential for our salvation.—"Being justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him" (Rom. 5:9). "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even for the forgiveness of sins" (Col. 1:14). "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). "This is the new covenant in my blood, shed for the remission of sins" (Matt. 26:28). "The Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world" (Jhn. 1: 29). "Unto him that loved us and washed us from our sins in his own blood" (Rev. 1:5). "Have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7:14).

10.—That Christ was himself saved in the Redemption he wrought out for US. — "In the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared. Though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became that author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb. 5:7-9). "Joint heirs with Christ" (Rom. 8:17). "By his own blood he entered once unto the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption"(Heb. 9:12). "Now the God of peace that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect" (Heb. 13:20).

11.—That as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented— "And by reason hereof, he ought as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. So also Christ glorified not himself to be made a high priest, but he that saith unto him," (Heb. 5:3). "Wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer" (Heb. 8:3). "Through the Eternal Spirit, he offered himself without spot unto God" (Heb. 9:14). "Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people's: for THIS he did once when he offered up himself (Heb. 7:27). "It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens (that is, the symbols employed under the law), should be purified with these (Mosaic sacrifices), but the heavenly things themselves (that is, Christ who is the substance prefigured in the law), with better sacrifices than these" (that is, the sacrifice of Christ —Heb. 9:23).

To the above eleven points we would make but two additions; and these are added only for the purpose of endeavouring to counter confusion which presently appears to exist in regard to two matters in particular:

* Our nature is a misfortune, not a crime. God does not hold any man accountable, legally or morally, because of the nature he bears.

* The word "Atonement" means "covering". It is used in Scripture to represent "covering" for sins and transgressions, and also "covering" for sin's flesh, or human nature, as shown by Bro. Roberts in the above extract from "The Law of Moses".

May we make a final appeal for brethren to carefully consider the Pioneer writings upon the subject of the Atonement; and, in particular, the way in which brethren Thomas and Roberts used the Scriptures of Truth so carefully and plainly to demonstrate that their beliefs upon the subject were in harmony with the teaching of the Word of God. J. U.

from Logos, 1987, p. 336-341. Here is this article in PDF format.