This article is referred to by bro Carter in Death of Brother Allan D. Strickler 1939.

The Christadelphian July 1921, C. C. Walker

“Christ the Firstfruits”

“Since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterwards they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:21–23). Christ then was “man,” and being man needed salvation from death by resurrection just as other men do, though he was sinless. Hence his sacrifice, agreeably to the type of the High Priest under the Law, was first for himself and then for the people. “This he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27). Thus he was saved from death (Heb.5:7), and “though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered” (Heb. 7:8). Thus God “brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb.13:20). Thus, “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb.9:12). It will be observed that the omitted words here, “for us, ” are in italics in the A.V., the reason being that they do not appear in the original. They are omitted from the R.V. for that reason. It is perfectly true, thank God, that the eternal redemption is “for us” contingent on its being first of all for the High Priest himself, “Christ the firstfruits”; but Paul is here dealing with “Christ” the “High Priest” (Heb. 9:11), and he obtained “eternal redemption” for himself that it might be for us. To say that it was “for us” and “not for himself,” is to contradict the word of God, and to take a step at least towards that doctrine of Antichrist that denies that Christ has come in the flesh. This is a form of error that has persisted from the days of the apostles until now. Thinking to “honour the Son,” some have exalted him above humanity, and thus taken him out of the human harvest as “the firstfruits.” As is the firstfruit so is the harvest. And as is the harvest so is the firstfruit. “Man” in each case, as Paul declared to the Corinthians, and as such needing salvation. It had been written in the prophets (Zech. 9:9), “Behold thy king cometh unto thee (O daughter of Zion). He is just and having salvation.” The salvation was by “the blood of thy covenant” (Zech. 9:11), by which both the “King” himself and his “prisoners of hope” are “brought again from the dead.” These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated and should not be now. Yet there is such current. We noticed last month, among pamphlets received, one on Sacrifice which reproduces the errors that were introduced by Edward Turney fifty years ago, and which were met by the demonstration of the Truth in the pamphlet, The Slain Lamb, to which attention is now again directed. It has just been reprinted. The pamphlet, The Blood of Christ, is a less controversial exhibition of the same truth. And so also is Dr. Thomas’ little pamphlet, Catechesis. Many of the statements of these pamphlets are now challenged, as in the pamphlet, Out of Darkness into Light, which, while admitting that Christ is “the Saved One” (page 30), nevertheless objects strongly (page 55) to the idea that the life of Jesus was “a forfeited life”; and on page 73 presents it as “proved” “that God’s method of salvation by the shedding of blood to make atonement did not apply to Christ,” a statement which is a direct contradiction of Heb. 13:20 quoted above. Again, on page 56, the writer sets out “to show that Christ could not be his own ransom sacrifice through death”; which, as before shown, was exactly what the Word of God declared he should be and was (Zech. 9.; Heb. 13.). We are not surprised that these things produce remonstrance and trouble, as visible in our Intelligence columns. Some are for withdrawing from the writers of such things, while others, though strongly disapproving, hesitate to take that step, especially as in other parts of the self-same writings the truth is apparently admitted and upheld. Intelligence is intelligence, some of it pleasant and helpful, some very much the reverse. We make known what is happening, even if it invites adverse comment. We repudiate the doctrines objected to above; but as to the men in question, those in association with them must decide the question of association for themselves.

The Christadelphian, September 1921, C. C. Walker

“Christ as ‘The Arm of the Lord’”

Some seem to suppose that by reason of our remarks last month on “Christ the Firstfruits,” and our insistence on the fact that, being “Man,” he needed deliverance from death (though sinless), as much as any other man, we are committed to the doctrine that he was a “mere man,” as it has been said; meaning that he was man and nothing more. Nothing could be further from the truth. He is prophetically designated “the arm of the Lord” (Isa. 53:1), though the immediate context (verse 3) describes him as “despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.” We always endeavour thus to combine the divine testimonies concerning Christ, but the exigencies of human controversies may sometimes render such endeavour ineffectual. When one aspect of truth is beclouded, you naturally turn the light of scripture on that to the exclusion of others, and that is one of the miseries of controversy; though in the long run it cannot be doubted that it makes for the better understanding of the truth. Christ himself says he is more than “mere man.” “I am the Son of God” (Jno. 10:36). “I am from above . . . I am not of this world” (Jno. 8:23). “ I proceeded forth and came from God . . . He sent me” (verse 42). “I am the bread that came down from heaven” (6:31). “Before Abraham was I am” (8:58). “I and the Father are one” (10:30). “Glory I had with thee before the world was” (17:5). “I am Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the Ending, which is and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty” (Rev. 1:8). “I am the Root and Offspring of David” (Rev. 22:16). “Ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where he was before” (Jno. 6:62). These and similar testimonies of Christ himself altogether exclude the doctrine of mere-manism, though on the other hand they do not support the current doctrine of Trinitarianism, which represents Christ as the incarnation of an eternally pre-existent Second Person of the Trinity. This is utterly excluded by his own declarations: “The Father is greater than I” . . . “greater than all”; and his attribution of his whole word and work to the Father who dwelt in him, and whose manifestation in the flesh he was—“through the veil, that is to say his flesh” (Heb. 10:20). In the case of Jesus “his flesh” was but “the veil” of the Godhead. “Thou shalt call his name Immanuel” (Isa. 7:14), “Jesus (Saviour): for he shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). And it is God who saves by Jesus whom he “begets” “sends,” “anoints,” and “makes strong” for the purpose. Christ is “the arm of the Lord,” and this divine phase must be rightly coordinated with that of his humanity, so that no flesh may boast, and all the glory may be to God.

The Christadelphian, September 1921, C. C. Walker

(extracts of correspondence on “Christ the Firstfruits” above commenting on bro Strickler’s mis-quoting of bro Thomas and bro Roberts)

Brother B. J. Dowling, of Worcester, Mass., writes:—

I wish to tell you how highly we appreciate the faithfulness, discretion and ability displayed by you in your conduct of The Christadelphian. ... Especially valuable is your July number, with its able editorial on “Christ the Firstfruits.” Your strictures on the Truth-nullifying pamphlet, Out of Darkness, are especially good. The author’s method of trimming and changing words is most dangerous to the rising generation, who are not familiar with the controversies of many years ago. ...

The author of Out of Darkness has issued another pamphlet, improperly styled A Defence of Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts. ... No intelligent person reading the works of Doctor Thomas and brother Roberts can have any doubt as to their teaching on this most important branch of human enquiry and hope. ...

The Apostle John was equally insistent upon a correct understanding of the nature of Christ, as shown by his words: “If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God-speed.” ...

The principles of Truth set forth in the pamphlets, The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ and also in your July editorial, have been upheld as you say, “from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated, and should not be now.”

Answer.—We are grateful to our brother not only for his words of appreciation, which come at a time when there is a good deal of the contrary thing current, but for his outspoken condemnation of current obscurations of the Truth. This strengthens our hands in a difficult task. We have just received from a brother a copy of the latest pamphlet mentioned by brother Dowling, and can only endorse his verdict thereon, and exhort all and sundry to read Dr. Thomas’ and brother Roberts’ writings for themselves, and not to be misled by second-hand extracts therefrom and allusions thereto. We have been for many years, and are still, arduously engaged in the dissemination of these writings in their integrity; but if they really taught such things as some allege, we would have nothing to do with them. At the same time, it remains to be said that it is because of the faithfulness of these authors to the Word of God, that we stick to this enterprise, and even so, we are not committed to every detail of interpretation, as this issue bears witness. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”