When we come to fix our attention on the Sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, it is well recognized in Christadelphian circles that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1Tim 1:15). But the salvation of sinners is not accomplished in a moment; several stages are required. A sinner firstly becomes a hearer of the word preached, then a believer (Rom 10:14-17). The believer, having learned what the Lord would have him do, then acts upon those things, being baptised into the Name of Yahweh – that is, the Name shared by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And being obedient believers, their sins are forgiven them: righteousness becomes imputed to them, and they become the seed of Abraham, and heirs according to the promise (Rom 4, Gal 3).
But in their state of mortality, believers are heirs only; not yet having received the promises. They see that day afar off (cp Heb 11:13) through faith, the day when the judgments and precepts of the Almighty shall be known by all upon the earth, and when glory, honour and immortality shall be granted to those who find favour in His sight. This is the final phase of redemption, deliverance from the body of death (Rom 7:24), and the partaking of Divine Nature (2Pet 1:4). To become immortal, the body of our humiliation must be transformed to become as the glorified, spirit-charged body of the Master (Phil 3:21). So it is that in the Divine Scheme of redemption, there are essentially two states of blessedness for obedient believers; the forgiveness of sins now; and the transformation of their mortal frame into glorious immortality in the future.
PRINCIPLES OF ATONEMENT
Whilst the fact that sins can be remitted in Christ is readily accepted, the issue frequently surfaces, as to how the principles of Atonement are brought to bear upon our “mortal flesh” (2 Cor 4:11). Clearly it does have a bearing, for the hope of the faithful, made possible by that sacrifice, involves a physical change to become immortal. But upon what basis? The question is sometimes raised as to whether or not the “flesh and blood” of which the children are all partakers, itself requires a cleansing by sacrifice – and particularly whether or not if so, if the Master who “also himself likewise took part in the same” flesh and blood, also had a personal need of cleansing, despite being without transgression. There are many doctrinal threads bound together in the Sacrifice of Christ, but as this issue appears to be current, it appears appropriate to examine this particular thread more particularly, and this we shall endeavour to do.
By utilising the Mosaic “schoolmaster” (Gal 3:25), the Spirit brings us to the principles of the Atoning work of our High Priest thus:
“such an high priest became us … who needeth not daily (lit. “day after day”), 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).
Here then, is a clear precedent established in the shadowy ordinance of the Law (Heb 10:1), a pattern of “good things to come” in Christ Jesus. A matter of principle is established, whereby in order to atone for others, a High Priest was required to offer for himself first (see Lev 16:6,11). But the Law being a shadow, and “not the very image of those things”, there was a difference. Unlike the priests who served after the order of Levi, our High Priest required not to offer day after day – but once only. And in Him, there was no need for two separate offerings, for he achieved both results in his one offering. As Bro Roberts expressed it:
“… Christ did ‘once’ in his death what the high priests under the law did daily, viz, offered “first for his own sins and then for the people’s” … he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered … But his offering for himself was also the offering for his people. The two aspects of the double typical offering were combined in one act. He had not twice to offer for himself …” (The Christadelphian 1875, p 139).
And again:
“Paul’s statement (Heb 7:27) is that Jesus did ONCE what the typical high priest did daily. What was that? “Offered first for his own sins and then for the people’s”. It follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh (The Christadelphian, 1873, p 405).
FOR HIMSELF – THAT IT MIGHT BE FOR US
The High Priest’s entry into the Holy of Holies on that day was to make atonement for the people (Lev 16:30), that by his appearance in the Divine presence as their representative (Cp Heb 9:24), they might be reconciled to Yahweh. But the priest was one of those people himself – he was part of the congregation, and in order to accomplish anything for them, he had to be sanctified first. There was then, a personal need to be met; the Priest himself, as a sinner, required forgiveness before he could atone for others – for how could a guilty man bring reconciliation between Yahweh and his people? Accordingly, the Law, whilst being a shadow of greater things, also met the circumstantial requirements of the people who lived under it.
But the Levitical priest required personal sacrifice because he was himself a sinner in need of forgiveness – what then of our High Priest? He “knew no sin” (2Cor 5:21), rather yielding total obedience to the righteous requirements of his Father – why should there be a need for him to offer “first for himself”? The plain answer of Scripture is that the Master inherited the “flesh and blood” of mankind which is under condemnation because of sin, and he required deliverance from it. How could he deliver others without being delivered himself first? The facts testify to the case, he is immortal; we are not. He was saved himself as “the firstfruits” (1 Cor. 15:23), and will yet save his brethren out of the grave at his coming. He required to be sanctified first, in order that he could sanctify others; even as he himself testified: “for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the Truth” (Jno 17:19).
The Testimony of the Spirit, is that in order for him appear in the Presence of Deity as the antitypical Aaron, the shedding of his own blood was firstly required, and his own redemption secured:
“Christ, being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the Holy Place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:1112 note: ‘for us’ is not in the Greek here, and is therefore omitted in some translations).
Bro Roberts explained the matter thus:
“The priests, in their official capacity were types of the great high priest between God and man, the man Christ Jesus; and there must therefore be a counterpart, in his case, to their official offering for themselves. This is not difficult to find in the view of the fact that the Lord partook of our unclean and condemned nature, which had as much to be redeemed in his case by death and resurrection, as in the case of his brethren, for whom he died” (The Christadelphian, 1875).
The Master then, (though blameless in every respect), by partaking of the same “flesh and blood” as those he came to save, partook of the condition of that nature, and the condemnation, which fell upon it. He, as the “firstborn” required redemption himself, in order that he could redeem others. This is a vital aspect of things which we ought never lose sight of; that the Master himself had a deep involvement in his own offering, aside from the fact that it was he who was sacrificed. In order to fulfil the Father’s purpose in redeeming sinners, he had to be redeemed himself first.
A WRONG UNDERSTANDING SET FORTH
There are those who deny this aspect of the Atonement, claiming that Sacrifice is required for transgressions only, and that therefore Christ had no such personal requirement. Accordingly, in the editorial for The Christadelphian Magazine of December 1993, we read the following:
“If his baptism had shown that he bore some kind of personal responsibility for his nature, then we would expect to find his sacrifice also having a bearing upon the same issue. But as he bore no moral accountability for his mortality, he did not have to make an offering for the nature he received at birth. He had to condemn sin and prove that he was master over his nature as no-one before or since has been. He did this by being obedient to his Father throughout his life, and declared that sin could not control him by remaining obedient even unto death”.
Again, an editor of The New Bible Student for March/April 1995 claims, in discussion of Heb 9:12:
“None of this, however means that he personally needed a blood sacrifice”
And again, in connection with Hebrews Chapter 13, verses 20-21:
“Whatever the true meaning of the passage it does not teach that the Lord needed to be cleansed physically by his own blood to rise from the dead” (p 190).
The same writer goes on to say:
“Clearly there are those who believe that the Lord’s shed blood was necessary for our nature (and his) as well as for our actual sins. They have a conviction that this was the teaching of our pioneer brethren. We have argued throughout this series that this view is a misconception …”.
A DOCTRINAL SHIFT
In these words, we detect a distinct shift in thinking from that of earlier Christadelphians, and from the plain teaching of Scripture, considered above. The Master “did not have to make an offering” for his nature, as he bore no moral accountability for it, so it is claimed. He did not “personally need a blood sacrifice”. To suggest that the Pioneers believed this is “a misconception.” But if this be true, what then do the following words of Bro Roberts signify?
“So he died for us; but did he not die for himself also? How otherwise could he have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in sending him forth in the likeness of sinful flesh? Paul says that ‘he that is dead is freed from sin,’ and that ‘in that Christ died, he died unto sin once,’ being raised from the dead, death hath no more dominion over him (Rom 6:7,9,10). Is it not clear from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin-power of death that was hereditarily in him in the days of his flesh?” (The Christadelphian, 1873, p 465-466).
And again, in speaking of the principles of the Law:
“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, it had its first effect.” (The Law of Moses, p 178,179).
The Pioneers were wholly consistent with what they taught concerning this vital subject. Not only did they demonstrate how the Master’s own redemption laid the foundation for the salvation of others, but Bro Roberts specifically repudiated the wrong doctrine with which we are being presented today.
Although the words we cited to illustrate this error were penned by editors of UK based magazines, the theory has mostly emanated from certain individuals, and ecclesias in Australia. Initially it was designated as the “Saved By His Life” theory after a book bearing that title, which appears to be the standard text for many who adopt this position. Now however, following the distribution of a certain booklet in refutation of the theory, it has become more commonly referred to as “The Theory of Partial Atonement”, so called because the basis of the concept is that only transgressions, not the “law of sin” which causes those transgressions, requires sacrificial cleansing—thus there is a partial, not full atonement (this labelling is somewhat inaccurate however, in that either the Sacrifice of Christ is efficacious or not. There is no such thing as being partially atoned for; the error we are encountering denies vital aspects of the Atonement, and therefore renders the whole ineffective, not simply one aspect. The error of the “Partial Atonement” believers is in thinking that there is no offering/sacrifice for mortality/sin in the flesh).
THE LAW OF SIN AND DEATH
Once Adam and Eve became dying sinners, their offspring, being derived from of the physical substance of their bodies, were born dying sinners also. But why is this? The answer of Scripture, is that all Adam’s descendants also share the physical condition of that nature: “the law of sin and death”, or “sin that dwelleth in me” (Rom 7:17), AKA the diabolos, which was condemned by God in sacrifice (Rom. 8:3). In Adam “all die” (1 Cor 15:22), for “by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation … by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners …” (Rom 5:19). That is, because of Adam’s transgression, all men are born into a constitution, or order of things dominated by sin and it’s effects, and they themselves – like Paul – have sin “dwelling” within them, as a “law” of their being, bringing them to the grave, and compelling them to transgress.
“The law of sin and death” thus passed into all of Adam’s progeny. That is why babies sometimes die, even tragically within the womb, when they can have done neither good nor evil (Rom 9:11). Though they have done no sin, and therefore are not personally accountable for evil performed, nevertheless, they blamelessly bear “the law of sin and death” within the very fabric of their being – sin, or the diabolos. This makes it “mortal flesh” to use the Apostle’s term (2 Cor. 4:11).
When we turn to consider the way of redemption in Christ then, we find that an essential principle to be involved, was the condemnation of Sin (Rom 8:3), in order that the Father be shown to be Righteous (Rom 3:25) in requiring it’s destruction (Heb 2:14). Death is the condemnation of sin—and forgiveness is not effected by the setting aside of that principle, but by submission to, and the endorsement of the righteousness of it. And this is what we find in the Sacrifice of Christ, as Bro Roberts showed:
“The crucifixion of Christ as a ‘declaration of the righteousness of God’ and a ‘condemnation of sin in the flesh’, exhibited to the world the righteous treatment of sin. It was as though it was proclaimed to all the world, when the body was nailed to the cross: “this is how condemned human nature should be treated according to the righteousness of God; it is fit only for destruction … such a declaration of the righteousness of God could only be made in the very nature concerned; a body under the dominion of death because of sin. It would not have been a declaration of the righteousness of God to have crucified an angel or a new man made fresh from the ground” (R Roberts, The Blood of Christ).
Forgiveness then, is extended by the Father’s mercy to those who identify themselves with that declaration made in His Son’s crucifixion. Bro Roberts summarized the situation very succinctly thus, in speaking of how Christ destroyed the hold which sin had over all mankind:
“He did not destroy the hold it had obtained on sinners in general; for the vast mass of them continue under it’s bondage from generation to generation, and will be held by it in eternal bonds, and the (comparative) few whom Christ will save are yet unreleased. He was sent to be a beginning or release for all who should incorporate themselves with him. The release began with himself. He destroyed that hold which the devil had obtained in himself through extraction from Adam, and through submission to the curse of the law in the mode of his death. He was of the same nature as ourselves as regards flesh and blood; and therefore death-stricken, for that is the quality of flesh and blood …
Death is a physical law in our members, implanted there through sin ages ago, and handed down from generation to generation. Consequently, partaking our physical nature, he partook of this, and his own deliverance (as “Christ the firstfruits”) was as necessary as that of his brethren. In fact, if Christ had not first been saved from death (Heb 5:7) – if he had not first obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12) – there would have been no hope for us, for we attain salvation only through what he has accomplished in himself, of which we become heirs by union with him. He overcomes, and we share his victory by uniting with him, if he at the judgement seat permits. This we do in baptism, in which we are made partakers of his death, as well as his resurrection” (The Christadelphian, Aug 1 1879)..
“SAVED BY HIS LIFE”
Denying the need for God to “condemn” (Rom 8:3), and “destroy” (Heb 2:14) the “sin in the flesh” through the sacrificial death and resurrection of His Son, the protagonists for the theory under consideration are compelled to find some other means whereby Sin could be condemned in Christ. The Scriptures strongly emphasize the manner in which he rendered perfect obedience to his Father in all things, and so, for some, his obedience in life becomes the means of sin’s condemnation, and therefore salvation—hence the title of the book, “Saved by His Life”.
Accordingly, we read statements like:
“The Lord acknowledged his Father’s righteousness in condemning sin as a way of life by refusing to practice” (18 point statement on aspects of the Atonement 14/10/90)
And again, as we read earlier:
“He had to condemn sin and prove that he was master over his nature as no one before or since has been. He did this by being obedient to his Father throughout his life, and declared that sin could not control him by remaining obedient even unto death” (The Christadelphian, Dec 1993)
It is, of course, perfectly true that “we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Heb 4:15). But the Scriptures do not state that it was his obedience in life that condemned sin. Indeed, Bro Roberts encountered the same notion—and refuted it:
“The reverence for Christ commands respect which leads some men to consider him immaculate in all senses and in no need to offer for himself, but it is not “according to knowledge”. It is not consistent with the Divine objects in God “sending forth his son in the likeness of sinful flesh”. All these objects blend together, but they are separable. One of them was to “condemn sin in the flesh,” as Paul says (Rom 8:3) … Some would explain it as meaning the moral condemnation of sin by Christ during his life. This cannot be the meaning in view of the statement with which it is conjoined that what was done was “what the law could not do”. The law condemned sin so thoroughly in the moral sense that it is called “the ministration of condemnation” (The Law of Moses).
The fact is inescapable, the “Saved by His Life” theory is a major departure from the Truth believed and taught by our earlier brethren. The expression “Saved by His Life” is itself a wresting of Scripture from it’s proper context, of the Apostle speaking of the Life of the Master which followed his death:
“God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.” (Rom 5:8-10).
Here is a passage of tremendous beauty and truth. Notice, we are “justified by his blood” – his poured-out blood – expressive of the expiration of his life upon the accursed tree.
Christ has taken sin out of the way, that he might be our High Priest appearing in the Father’s presence ‘for us’ (Heb 9:24). And having been so reconciled by the death of the Son, how much more can we have hope of salvation from death by his resurrection? “If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept” (1Cor 15:1920). Bearing our “flesh and blood”, in order that God might “condemn sin in the flesh”, the Master redeemed himself as the firstfruits, and thanks are due to the Father, that in so doing, the foundation has been laid for our salvation also, at his coming again “without sin unto salvation” to those that look for him (Heb. 9:28).
Christopher Maddocks
