Website Article

“The Relationship of Christ to His Death on the Cross”

Mystifying the Atonement

When clarifying the difficulties on the Atonement in Australia in 1958 regarding the nature of Adam before the fall, sin and sinful flesh, and the relationship of Christ to his death on the cross, bro John Carter remarked;

“The wondrous love of God in giving Jesus, his perfect obedience to the Father, even unto death on the cross, the offer of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of life by the transformation of our bodies like unto the body of his glory, the provision of one who ever liveth to make intercession for us, and who can save to the uttermost—these and kindred truths can be overlaid with cloudy and mystifying strifes of words, which dishearten the simple earnest believer, annoy the earnest seeker after the deeper things of divine truth, and destroy the soul enlarging and purifying effects which God intended the offering of His Son should produce. The love of Christ constrains to holiness, not to strife.”

These sentiments are echoes of the words of bro Islip Collyer in two articles bro John Carter reprinted at the time of reunion in 1957 “Pushing Inquiry Too Far” and in 1958 “The Meaning of Sacrifice”.

“The doctrine of atonement involved in this Scriptural principle is one of the most important and in some respects one of the most difficult of all the primary truths connected with the Gospel. Nowhere else is it so easy for men to get out of their depths and there is no other subject that proves so tempting.

There is certainly danger that vital truths affecting the sacrifice of Christ may be called in question or may be obscured by wrong teaching on this subject. There is far more danger that a destructive strife of words should arise through men getting out of their mental depth in an effort to measure the mind of God. Dr. Thomas once remarked that the elementary truths regarding redemption were few and simple and no reason could be given for them beyond “the fact that God wills them”. If a candidate for baptism revealed a sound knowledge of these simple truths and of this simple explanation of them, we should not dare to “forbid water”.

Suppose that having rendered a satisfactory confession of faith on all other first principles the candidate said: “I believe that God required a perfect sacrifice before He could forgive sin, and that He provided the One capable of rendering that sacrifice. He sent forth His Son, the Lord Jesus, made of a woman, made in all points like his brethren, tempted in all points as we are, but by virtue of his divine parentage so superior to us morally that he was able to render the perfect sacrifice required and thus to secure redemption for himself from sin-stricken human nature and both forgiveness and redemption for those who come to God through him in the way appointed.” Should we dare to forbid baptism because the candidate was unable to explain why God required a perfect sacrifice, or why He demanded the shedding of blood before sins could be remitted?

If we are quite agreed that an understanding of these simple elements is sufficient for one to enter the Covenant, surely it is a tragedy if brethren become divided simply through the effort to see further. It may be even worse than a tragedy for it sometimes leads to destructive strife in which extremes act and re-act upon each other, the disputants getting further and further out of their depth, while the vital duties of life are neglected. …

Earnest brethren and sisters, anxious to hold the truth, have sometimes been perplexed and almost distracted in the strife of words, beyond their power to understand.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” by Islip Collyer, The Christadelphian, July 1958)

It is difficult to maintain a balance when opposing error and not go too far one way or the other. Bro John Carter had a lot of experience dealing with both extremes of error on the Atonement and he made this point.

“In opposing error there is always a danger of over-emphasizing the opposite. We have spent considerable time over the years studying the contentions that have disturbed our community during the last 100 years. We have noticed when error has been resisted that not all the arguments advanced have been sound and good. At the time the arguments have been permitted without too close a scrutiny because they were advanced in opposition to the error which was being repulsed. …

Another possible evil result of contentions is seen when erroneous ideas are mistakenly attributed to one who takes part in a discussion.” (“Dangers Arising Out of Controversy” John Carter. The Christadelphian, August 1958)

In Australia in particular, the tragedy is that brethren who would agree on the “simple elements” of the Atonement have become divided by going too far on certain elements and engaged in “destructive strife in which extremes act and re-act upon each other, the disputants getting further and further out of their depth, while the vital duties of life are neglected”.

No other aspect of the Atonement excites more controversy and strife than the relationship of Christ to his death on the cross. As bro Islip Collyer remarks.

“Much controversy has been caused by the question as to whether Christ offered for his own cleansing. It has been largely a war of words, due on the one hand to a fear of saying or subscribing to anything derogatory to Christ and on the other hand perhaps a tendency to relapse into the old exaggeration of “original sin”. (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” Islip Collyer, The Christadelphian, July 1958)

There are two polarised views on the relationship of Christ to his death on the cross along the divide that bro Islip Collyer identifies above. Neither of these views represents the truth and balance of the historic Central position on the Atonement. Both contain elements of truth that are distorted by going too far.

Proponents of both views quote bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to support their stance but both views also contradict them in some way. As bro John Carter said.

“The answer is that in every controversy for the last eighty years, both sides have quoted Dr. Thomas, and in the 1890’s Bro. Roberts’ earlier writings were quoted against himself despite his denial of the inferences which were drawn from his earlier writings. We need not be disturbed at this.” (“Reference to Pioneer Writings” John Carter, The Christadelphian, November 1958)

The View that “Christ Was Cleansed From ‘Sin in the Flesh’ by His Sacrifice”

One polarised view reasons that “sin” is a literal element in human nature and that it needs to be cleansed by sacrifice just as equally as cleansing from acts of sin.

They believe that although Christ was sinless, he had “sin in the flesh” and therefore needed cleansing from this “sin” by his sacrifice.

The main points of this view are;

• There are two acceptations of sin which are acts of sin and “sin in the flesh”. These equally require cleansing through Christ’s sacrifice. Bro John Thomas is quoted from Elpis Israel in support of this view and much emphasis is put on his statement of “two principle acceptations”.

  • “The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place, “the transgression of the law”; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust.” (“The Constitution of Sin” John Thomas. Elpis Israel)

• Sin is a literal element in the flesh, i.e. “sin in the flesh”, that is the cause of sinful acts as well as mortality and death.

• Flesh and sin are synonymous. Sin is not a metonym for sinful lusts in human nature. Bro John Thomas is quoted from Elpis Israel in support of this with much emphasis put on his use of sin as a synonym.

  • “Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean.” (“The Constitution of Sin” John Thomas. Elpis Israel)

• Blood shedding is required for forgiveness of sins and cleansing from “sin in the flesh”.

• Atonement means cleansing and a covering, which is required for forgiveness of sins and cleansing from “sin in the flesh”. The word “Atonement” is not seen as strictly meaning forgiveness only.

• Baptism is for the forgiveness of sins as well as a covering for “sin in the flesh” so that we can be cleansed from it at the judgement seat.

• Jesus had to offer and atone for himself so he could be cleansed from “sin in the flesh”.

• Jesus obtained redemption for himself and us through his blood.

Similarities to the Berean View that Leans Towards Andrewism

This polarised view is similar to the teachings of the Berean fellowship views which leans towards the teachings of bro J.J. Andrew, however this polarised view does not have the extremes of bro J.J. Andrews error that requires legal cleansing and forgiveness from condemnation for the sin of Adam. It is not correct or accurate to describe this polarised view as “Andrewsim”.

This polarised view on the Atonement causes confusion because it is based on a wrong premise that sin is a literal element in the flesh that requires sacrificial cleansing. This view confuses literal and figurative terms to convey the idea of a mechanical or legal process in sacrifice.

As bro John Carter said “Much confusion has arisen from treating the phrase “sin in the flesh”, which occurs but once, as a hyphenated expression. Similarly, the phrase “sinful flesh” which also occurs only once, is strictly “flesh of sin”, in which phrase the figure of personification and ownership is continued” (The Christadelphian, July 1958, an extract of which is reproduced in the Unity Book p. 20).

While proponents of this polarised view deny considering Jesus in isolation from his work, they have similarities with the teachings of the Berean fellowship that leans towards the teachings of Andrewsim which does consider Jesus in isolation from his work.

This leaning towards the teachings of bro J.J. Andrew is evident by the fact that proponents of this view believe that some of the statements of bro J.J. Andrew cited by bro John Carter in the Australian Unity Book (Doctrinal Error Exposed, page 70) are not necessarily error.

“Bro Carter did not say that the citations on p 70 are necessarily wrong … nor are they necessarily doctrinally erroneous” (“The Truth Under Challenge”, p. 34 by Logos),

This is despite bro John Carter citing them as error that was resisted.

“That these ideas were resisted at the time they were advanced is abundantly evident from the discussions in The Christadelphian in the 1890s. We believe they are far removed from the plain truths of Scripture, which can be expressed in terms the simplest can understand, whereas contentions along the lines of these extracts, while sometimes having a show of logic, lead to strife about legal abstractions.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958, an extract of which is reproduced in the Unity Book p. 59)

Although proponents of this view quote bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts in support of their view, they also contradict them. They are therefore not fully aligned with the views of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

For example, a proponent of this polarised view even quotes bro Edward Turney against bro Robert Roberts in contending that the phrase “sin in the flesh” is literal and not a figure of speech by metonymy.

“You can talk about mortality and half-heartedly endorse "two acceptations of the word sin" but the bottom line is, if you deny sin in the flesh is a physical principle, or quality, of the flesh, styled indwelling sin, which returns the mortal body to the dust a.k.a. the devil, you hold the doctrine of clean-flesh. Hear the admission of Edward Turney:

"The Editor [Robert Roberts] proceeds 'Sin in the flesh is metonymical, it is not the expression of a literal element or principle pervading physical organization. [ET: Is not that plain enough]. Literally, sin is disobedience or an act of rebellion. The impulses that lead to this reside in the flesh and therefore came to be called by the name of the act to which they gave birth. In defining first principles we must be accurate in our conceptions.’

"I respond to that most heartily. I wish I had been more accurate in my own ten years ago." (Edward Turney, The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 23)

So yes, clean-flesh from the beginning has accepted "sin in the flesh" as a metonymy or figure of speech. There's nothing, they say, behind the figure. The admission of metonymy is no admission to sin in the flesh”. (The Bible Prophecy Channel Website).

Misrepresenting Bro John Thomas

The interpretation of bro John Thomas’ words in Elpis Israel that “Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature” and therefore is not a metonym is not able to substantiated by his general teaching from his other writings, nor from bro Robert Roberts who was contemporay with him. Nor can the interpretation be substantiated that bro John Thomas’ words that “The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture” means that “sin in the flesh” is a literal element in the flesh that needs sacrificial cleansing equally with acts of sin.

Bro Robert Roberts puts the matter in perspective when answering correspondents on Renunciationsim in 1874. This has always been the consistent Central position on this matter.

Sin in the Flesh

“What do you mean by ‘sin in the flesh,’ which some speak of as a fixed principle?”—(C.F.)

Answer.—… “Sin in the flesh,” which is Paul’s phrase, refers to the same thing. It is what Paul also calls “Sin that dwelleth in me” (Rom. 7:17), adding, “I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” Now, what is this element called “uncleanness,” “sin,” “iniquity,” &c.? The difficulty experienced by some in the solution of this question, arises from a disregard of the secondary use of terms. Knowing that sin is the act of transgression, they read “act of transgression” every time they see the term sin, ignoring the fact that there is a metonymy in the use of all words which apply even to sin.  … A disregard of metonymy and ellipsis in such statements, has led to most of the errors of the apostacy; and is leading some back to them who had escaped.

There is a principle, element, or peculiarity in our constitution (it matters not how you word it) which leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin; and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things. God’s sentences are not carried out by hangmen’s ropes and executioners’ axes, but by the inworking of His appointed law. Because the invisible, constitutional, physical inworking of death in us came by sin, that inworking is termed sin. It is a principle of uncleanness and corruption and weakness—the word and experience conjoining in this testimony. For this reason, it is morally operative: for whatever affects the physical, affects the moral. If no counterforce were brought into play, its presence would subject us to the uncontrolled dominion of disobedience, through the constitutional weakness and impulse to sin. … The body of the Lord Jesus was this same unclean nature in the hand of the Father, that deliverance might be effected by God on His own principles and to His own glory. … He provided a prisoner furnished with the key of obedience who could open the door for all who should name themselves after Him.” (The Christadelphian, January 1874)

The View that “Christ Was Saved By Perfect Obedience Only Without Need of His Sacrifice For Himself”

The other polarised view reasons that Christ was saved by his perfect obedience only. Christ was sinless so therefore he had no need for bloodshedding for himself to be saved, but because his sacrifice was required by God it was part of his perfect obedience.

The main points of this view are;

• Bloodshedding is only spoken of in connection with actual sin, so the shedding of Christ’s blood was for us only. Jesus was sinless so he did not require the shedding of blood itself to be saved from death, but the shedding of his blood was required by him as an act of obedience. Bro Robert Roberts is quoted in support of this.

  • In the Andrews Roberts Debate, No. 406: “Does it not teach that the sin nature, which in the first instance has no moral guilt, requires bloodshedding in order that it may be cleansed or justified?” Answer: “Bloodshedding is never spoken of except in connection with actual sin.”

• The shedding of Christ’s blood was not required for himself except insofar as it involved his compliance with God’s will as a matter of obedience, enabling him to share his Father’s nature as a result. This is based on the premise that if Jesus was alone to be saved his sacrifice would not be necessary because he did not sin.

  Bro Robert Roberts is quoted in support of this.

  • “without setting aside the fact that he partook of our mortal nature and was redeemed from death because of his obedience. That answer is that in the matter of personal offences, the death of Christ was not for himself but for us. He was absolutely without sin. . . . ‘For himself’ it was unnecessary that he should have been nailed to the tree, except as part of the obedience the Father required at his hands. It was ‘for us’ he was thus slain”. (The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 554, and 1894, p. 467).

  • In the Andrews Roberts Debate, Question No. 284, “Did Christ require to die for himself?” Answer: “In view of the work he came to do, yes; but if there had been himself only, No.”

• A distinction is made between Jesus dying for himself versus Jesus offering for himself. Jesus had to die because he was mortal, but he did not need to offer for himself as this would be to atone for his human nature. It is speculated that if he had died a natural death, without being required by God to die a sacrificial death, he would be raised to immortality because of his perfect obedience.

  Bro Robert Roberts is quoted in support of this in “The Slain Lamb”.

  • “If there had been a Jew who had kept the law in all things, having done the will of the Father from the very beginning of life to the end of his life, he would have been in the very position of the Lord Jesus himself; it would have been in his power, by dying, to cleanse himself from the Adamic condemnation, and his righteousness would have caused his resurrection from the dead.” (The Slain Lamb)

• Atonement is a moral term only and means reconciliation. It only refers to the forgiveness of sins and is not relevant to deliverance from mortality. Immortalisation follows automatically as a result of forgiveness.

• We need atonement for our sins only and not for our nature. Immortality at the judgement seat follows automatically as a result of forgiveness but is not directly related to the sacrifice of Christ

• Christ’s benefit from his sacrifice was that it was the crowning act of obedience that resulted in his immortality. The shedding of his blood itself played no part in his redemption.

This view is based on the premise that bloodshedding is only required for actual sin and so therefore Christ’s sacrifice is only for the forgiveness of sins and not for human nature. Therefore Christ’s sacrifice was not needed for him except as an act of obedience.

This view separates Christ from his redemptive work as it is based on the conjecture that if Jesus was alone to be saved his sacrifice would not be unnecessary because he did not sin. If he had died a natural death he would have been raised to immortality because of his perfect obedience, so his sacrifice was not neccessary for himself except as part of his obedience.

A Leaning Towards Clean Flesh

This polarised view leans towards the Shield Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell. It arrives at a similar conclusion regarding Christ in relation to his death on the cross, although it opposes the other extremes of Clean Flesh teachings concerning the nature of Adam at creation and the nature of man. It is therefore not correct or accurate to describe this polarised view as “Clean Flesh”.

This view is based on the premise that bloodshedding is only required for actual sin and so therefore Christ’s sacrifice is only for the forgiveness of sins and not for human nature. Therefore Christ’s sacrifice was not needed for him except as an act of obedience. It separates Christ from his redemptive work as it is based on the conjecture that if Jesus was alone to be saved his sacrifice would not be unnecessary because he did not sin.

This view on Christ in relation to his death on the cross is exactly the same as that of bro A.D. Strickler who taught a version of Clean Flesh in his book “Out of Darkness Into Light” published in 1921.

He taught that Christ’s sacrifice is for the forgiveness of sins only, and not for deliverance from mortality. He taught that after the forgiveness of sins “immortalisation follows automatically as a result”.

“I am a firm believer in the fall and redemption of man, and that the only disability that God holds against man and for which man is responsible, is moral or a wicked state of mind resulting in “wicked works;” that alienation is because of this moral state, hence atonement has to do only with correction of it.

Immortalization follows automatically as a result. “The redemption which is in “Christ Jesus through his blood’ is the forgiveness of sins.” See Eph. 1:7.

There is no such thing found in the Bible as physical alienation; nor physical atonement.” (Letter from A. D. Strickler” The Christadelphona, April 1926)

Bro C.C. Walker identified the teachings of bro A. D. Strickler in “Out of Darkness Into Light” and quotes extracts from it as challenging the doctrines set out in pamphlets by bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

“Many of the statements of these pamphlets (i.e, The Slain Lamb, The Blood of Christ, Catechesis) 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 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, July 1921)

Bro John Carter identified that the teachings of bro A.D. Strickler set out in his book “Out of Darkness Into Light” were a form of Clean Flesh.

“In 1921 when Out of Darkness into Light was published, brother C. C. Walker pointed out that the pamphlet challenged some of the statements in the pamphlets The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ, … Brother Walker said, “We repudiate the doctrines” (which brother Strickler had set out in opposition to the pamphlets named.) …

A criticism by brother Strickler of a pamphlet published by this Office led to a correspondence for about eighteen months, now terminated by his death. This, with original letters and copies of letters which have passed through our hands written to other brethren (brother Strickler was an indefatigable and voluminous letter writer) led us to the conclusion that at the end of his life he did not accept without reserve some of the clauses in The Statement of Faith concerning the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ” (The Christadelphian, February 1939).

“This contention (i.e. Renunciationism), with modifications, has reappeared more than once since it was first proclaimed in the early 1870s. ... It has been revived in certain of its aspects in recent teaching in America. (viz. by bro A. D. Strickler)” (The Christadelphian, May 1939)”

On the other hand, the Shield magazine stated its approval of bro A. D. Strickler’s teachings because of how it aligned with the Shield Clean Flesh views and contradicted the Central position on the Atonement expounded in The Christadelphian magazine.

“It is in protest against this monstrous blasphemy (i.e. the Central position on the Atonement set out in The Christadelphian magazine) that Bro. Strickler has written.” (The Shield 1921)

“The Shield, August 15th, with article on “Original Sin” approving brother A. D. Strickler’s recent essays and denouncing The Christadelphian for propounding “horrible teaching” on the subject, “the very same theory” as Rome, and so forth”. (The Christadelphian, December 1921).

The leaning of this view towards the Clean Flesh teachings of bro John Bell is evident by the fact it aligns with the teachings of bro A.D. Strickler regarding Christ in relation to his death on the cross.

Bro Harry Fry from the U.K reproduced errors of bro A.D. Strickler’s views in his booklet “Echoes of Past Controversies” published in 1923. Bro Harry Fry defended bro A.D. Strickler’s views on Christ in relation to his death on the cross in a letter he wrote to bro F.G. Jannaway published in The Christadelphian, September 1923.

Bro Harry Fry had previously been withdrawn from by the Bournemouth ecclesia in 1898 for publicly proclaiming “the doctrine that Jesus was not in a position requiring to offer himself as a sacrifice to secure his own redemption, that the sacrifice of Christ was required only to effect the salvation of actual transgressors. Jesus being no transgressor, for himself, his sacrifice was not needed.” (The Christadelphian, May 1898).

This polarised view aligns exactly with the views of bro Harry Fry on Christ in relation to his death on the cross. Some proponents of this view even printed and distributed copies of bro Harry Fry’s booklet “Echoes of Past Controversies” to promote these views in Australia around the 1990’s.

This same line of reasoning of bro Harry Fry, including the same quotes from bro Robert Roberts he cites, is used in the booklet “The Relationship of Christ to His Death on the Cross” by bro John Hensley.

Although proponents of this view quote bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts in support of their view, they also contradict them. They disagree with bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts exposition on Jesus as the High Priest in Hebrews 9:7 & 23 and openly state that they are incorrect. Instead, they follow the views of well-known Clean Flesh teachers from the Shield fellowship to explain these verses, as discussed later in this article.

Misrepresenting Bro Robert Roberts

Bro Harry Fry selects the questions and answers from the Andrews Roberts Debate that support his argument but ignores those that do not. This is amounts to a misrepresentation of bro Robert Roberts views in the debate and the general teaching in his considered writings.

When the Advocate magazine alleged that bro Robert Roberts had changed his mind from his previous stance with Renunciationist Clean Flesh he denied it and provided evidence.

“B. M.—It is a total misapprehension on the part of the Advocate to allege or suggest that we have altered our position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ. We hold absolutely by all we wrote 20 years ago at the time of the Renunciationist controversy. It is all on record for inspection, and the London debate will be found in absolute harmony with it. Where it might for a moment seem otherwise is where we refused to consider the case of Christ apart from the race for whose salvation he was brought into being. The reason for this is explicitly stated in the answers 393, and from 706 to 724—namely, that if there had been no human race to save, there would have been no Christ; and if there had been, he would not have been in the position he stood in as a member of that race. Even in the Renunciationist tussle, we recognised this reasonable distinction (see article in Christadelphian for March, 1875 page 139, the very heading of which is “For himself that it might be for us.”) Run through the Christadelphian for 1874 or 1875, and you will find abundant corroboration of what we now say. If you want particular reference, see Christadelphian, 1873, pages 402–409; also 434 to 468 (The Slain Lamb); Christadelphian for 1874, page 139; also 140–2; and many other places too numerous for citation.” (The Christadelphian, September 1894)

The questions and answers from the Andrews Roberts Debate that bro Robert Roberts refers to, but which bro Harry Fry ignores, are listed below.

392. That is fully recognized. The question relates to the basis. Did not Christ enter into the most holy place or immortality on the basis of the shedding of his blood? Does not that mean that he could not enter in without? Does it not also mean that the blood cleansed him individually from corruption which was an impediment to his obtaining eternal life? Answer: I do not deny that.

393. Why did you say that Christ did not die for himself, apart from others? Answer: Because you were asking me to consider him in his individual capacity, detached from the human race, and I refuse to consider him in that capacity.

704. What is the antitype of making an atonement for the holy place in regard to Christ? Answer: Cleansing and redeeming him from Adamic nature utterly.

705. Shedding of his blood and raising him from the dead? Answer: The whole process.

706. In relation to himself, personally, apart from his position as a sin-bearer for others? Answer: You cannot take him apart from that position.

707. Have you not taken him apart from that position formerly? Answer: Never.

708. Not in the argument with Renunciationists? Answer: That is too general a question altogether. There never would have been a Christ if there had not been a sin race to be redeemed. If he had been by himself, he would not have required to die at all, if he had been disconnected from our race.

709. What do you mean by that? Answer: I mean if he had been by himself—a new Adam—having no connection with the race of Adam first; not made out of it.

710. But if as a descendant of Adam, he had been the only one to whom God granted the offer of salvation, would he not have had to die before he could obtain that salvation? Answer: I refuse the question in that form, because it is an impossible “if.” He was not sent for himself, but for us.

711. Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up for himself for the purging of his own sin nature? Answer: As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, and a son of David, yes.

712. First from the uncleanness of death that having by his own blood obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others? Answer: Certainly.

713. Then he died for himself apart from being a sin-bearer for others? Answer: I do not admit that: I cannot separate him from his work.

714. Was he not so separated 20 years ago to refute the free life theory? Answer: Not by me, it might be by you.

715. How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, “made in the likeness of sinful flesh,” if he had not died for himself as well as for us? Answer: He could not.

716. Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Answer: Oh, certainly.

717. Is it not clear then from this that the death of Christ was necessary to purify his own nature from the sin power? Answer: Certainly.

718. That was hereditary in him in the days of his flesh? Answer: No doubt of it.

719. And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his shed blood and resurrection? Answer: Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least.

720. Did you not say on Tuesday night that he did not need to shed his blood for himself? Answer: That is upon your impossible supposition that he stood apart from us, and was a new Adam altogether.

721. I never introduced that position. Answer: You are unfortunate in not conveying your ideas to me.

722. I never introduced that idea to you. Answer: You asked me to consider him apart from us.

723. Apart from us, but still a descendant of Adam? Answer: That is my point, that you cannot separate him from the work he came to do. There never would have been a Christ at all if he had not been for that work.

724. Then as a descendant of Adam, it was necessary for himself to shed his blood in order to obtain eternal life? Answer: I have already answered that question several times.

The chairman of the Andrews Roberts Debate was bro G. F. Lake who wrote that the statements of bro Robert Roberts quoted by Brother Fry are not a true representation of bro Robert Roberts teachings. This is easily verified.

"The statements quoted by Brother Fry from the Debate with Brother J. J. Andrew are not a true representation of Brother Roberts' teaching. The present writer was chairman at that debate, and followed it very closely. In the excitement of debate and under stress and pressure of very subtle and acute questioning, Brother Roberts was led into making statements which were at variance with his former writings. After the second night I made kind and brotherly remonstrance with him upon the matter. He admitted the mistake and undertook to correct it - which was done when he wrote immediately afterwards, The Blood of Christ (1895) and the Law of Moses (a series in the Christadelphian 1896, and book 1898). (The Son of God and Alienation by G. F. Lake, Message, November 1926)

The remark by bro Robert Roberts in “The Slain Lamb” is also frequently used in support of Clean Flesh teaching but never Central teaching. Bro C. C. Walker explained that bro Robert Roberts remark was an aberration and is inconsistent with his general teaching.

“As to the remark of brother Roberts in The Slain Lamb, a controversial lecture delivered in 1873 (p. 9), to which our correspondent refers, it was a passing hypothetical speculation uttered in the heat of a controversial lecture, and will not stand investigation for a moment. It would unquestionably have been deleted had the pamphlet ever been revised by the writer, which it never was. It was not a feature of brother Roberts’ serious teaching, which is to be found in the pamphlet, The Blood of Christ, (1895), written after more than twenty years more experience of these distressing controversies. But seeing that some are always harping on this matter, let us clear it up once and for all. The remark in question runs as follows:

“If there had been a Jew who had kept the law in all things, having done the will of the Father from the very beginning of life to the end of his life, he would have been in the very position of the Lord Jesus himself; it would have been in his power, by dying, to cleanse himself from the Adamic condemnation, and his righteousness would have caused his resurrection from the dead.”

Now it is obvious that in the very nature of things no other Jew could ever possibly have been “in the very position of the Lord Jesus himself.” He must be the Seed of the Woman, Son of God and of David, Immanuel, and must have been born to die by sacrifice, to be “given for a covenant” that he might bring life from the dead. This was “the will of the Father” which none but Jesus could do: “Lo I come, to do thy will, O God.” We have no right to indulge in hypothetical speculations as to what “might have been” with regard to Christ and mankind. When we do so we get lost, and introduce confusion into the divine plans. We are not complaining against brother Roberts in saying this. The lecture in question is a noble defence of the truth against false doctrine, and the passage quoted is the only flaw in it. We are very thankful indeed for the faithful work of the deceased, and we have no fear of any complaint on this head in the day of Christ, should we be permitted to join hands with the writer in the Kingdom of God. We cannot legitimately contemplate Christ “apart from his work as the Sacrificial Redeemer of the race,” as our correspondent puts it in this connection. “Apart” from this he is no Christ at all, and no other provision was made by the Father by which His “Holy One” should live for ever than that which has been revealed. It is presumption and folly to speculate concerning anything else. (The Christadelphian, December 1910)

Losing Balance by Going to Extremes

Neither of these polarised views represent the balance of the historic Central position on the Atonement as defined in the B.A.S.F. These polarised views originated because of going too far in opposing the errors of bro J.J. Andrews on the one hand and going too far in opposing the errors of Clean Flesh on the other hand.

Bro John Carter observed this in the controversy surrounding bro A.D. Strickler in America and the formation of the Berean fellowship. Bro Harry Fry replicated the errors of bro A. D. Strickler in his booklet “Echoes of Past Controversies”.

“Bro. A.D. Strickler took part in resisting the Andrew-Williams teaching. He did so by advancing arguments which contained the seed of his later teaching. …

The fact — and we are seeking facts — the fact is, that in resisting one error, he swung to the opposite extreme! But brethren did not notice it because his aim was to demolish the Andrew error. I have read as carefully as, perhaps, any other Brother, what Bro. A.D. Strickler wrote. In his writings he seeks to emphasise the moral issues involved in God’s dealing with men, in opposition to the mechanical theories of J.J Andrew. He, however, contradicts certain aspects of the Truth, which we noted elsewhere, and which need not here take valuable time. Bro. A.D. Strickler is dead. But now, opposition by some Brethren to Bro. Strickler’s views had led to a swing back to the position of Bro. Andrew… I have more than once been told by correspondents, who were not supporters of Bro. Strickler’s views, that one of the difficulties of the position in the USA was that some Berean Brethren were themselves in an extreme position: an opposite extreme to Bro. Strickler, but still extreme. (“A Further Important Message to All Christadelphians” John Carter, September 1947)

When announcing the death of bro A.D. Strickler in 1939, bro John Carter commented on the confusion and division that had been caused by bro A.D. Strickler’s writings.

“A brief word of comment may perhaps be made. As all know, brother A. D. Strickler’s writings have been the cause of much strife, contention, and of division in the Brotherhood. …

In 1921 when Out of Darkness into Light was published, brother C. C. Walker pointed out that the pamphlet challenged some of the statements in the pamphlets The Slain Lamb and The Blood of Christ, while he recognised the ambiguity of the language used, and the contradictions in the pamphlet itself. We know one brother who read carefully Out of Darkness, and marked in red all statements setting out one view, and in blue all the contradictory ones. It was not to be wondered at that difference of opinion followed, some condemning the writer, and others justifying him. Brother Walker said, “We repudiate the doctrines” (which brother Strickler had set out in opposition to the pamphlets named.) …

A criticism by brother Strickler of a pamphlet published by this Office led to a correspondence for about eighteen months, now terminated by his death. This, with original letters and copies of letters which have passed through our hands written to other brethren (brother Strickler was an indefatigable and voluminous letter writer) led us to the conclusion that at the end of his life he did not accept without reserve some of the clauses in The Statement of Faith concerning the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ.” (The Christadelphian, February 1939)

The confusing and contradictory views of bro A. D. Strickler and his perception of the alternate view he was opposing can be seen in the letter he wrote to a bro Arthur Barnes.

“I am a firm believer in the fall and redemption of man, and that the only disability that God holds against man and for which man is responsible, is moral or a wicked state of mind resulting in “wicked works;” that alienation is because of this moral state, hence atonement has to do only with correction of it.

Immortalization follows automatically as a result. “The redemption which is in “Christ Jesus through his blood’ is the forgiveness of sins.” See Eph. 1:7.

There is no such thing found in the Bible as physical alienation; nor physical atonement.” (Letter from A. D. Strickler” The Christadelphona, April 1926)

Bro A. D. Strickler correctly identifies physical alienation as an error, but he goes to an extreme in opposing it and uses confusing reasoning. Bro John Carter had to oppose the theories of alienation in America and Australia but he did not use the same arguments as bro A. D. Strickler. Bro John Carter consistently maintained the balanced teachings of bro Robert Roberts.

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true. Neither is it true that in opposing these theories of alienation we have changed our view. We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

Bro John Carter states that he did not change his view for forty years after he saw that bro Roberts position was the scriptural one. He remained balanced in his views and opposed the extremes of both Clean Flesh and the Berean “theories of alienation”, neither of which he considered to be the scriptural position.

Bro A. D. Strickler’s teachings are not supported by the writings of bro John Thomas or bro Robert Roberts whom he quotes in support of his ideas. Bro John Carter said that his teachings were identified by bro C. C. Walker as challenging their writings in “Catechesis”, “The Slain Lamb” and “The Blood of Christ”.

The ambiguity and confusion of bro A.D. Strickler’s writings had caused division in America with the formation of the Berean fellowship out of Central. When bro A.D. Strickler’s died, bro John Carter reached out to the Berean fellowship in an effort to heal the breach and did so by restating the historic Central position on the Atonement.

Bro John Carter consistently used the wrtings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts to illustrate the Scriptural teachings defined in the B.A.S.F. that are the historic Central position on the Atonement. He did not do so by selectively quoting them as these two polarised views do, but by harmonising their writings to show the consistency of their general teaching.

“It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we agree with that. … Any such form of words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.” (The Christadelphian, December 1940)

Bro John Carter specifically listed some articles and books by bro Robert Roberts that illustrate his meaning in the Atonement clauses of the B.A.S.F.

“Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Demystifying the Atonement

In his article “The Meaning of Sacrifice” bro Islip Collyer wisely counsels that the figures and symbols surrounding the sacrifice of Christ in the Bible should be understood from the plain statements of Scripture.

“The New Testament describes the sacrifice of Christ in plain and literal language. Let us interpret all figures and symbols by reference to the plain statements. God who knows the end from the beginning, who does according to His will, but who “cannot deny Himself”—God provided the means for condemning and overcoming sins on the basis of which He with much forbearance forgives those who please Him by their faith.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

Both polarised views quote this article by bro Islip Collyer “The Meaning of Sacrifice” in support of their view, but this article does not actually support either view because it shows up the imbalances and faulty reasoning of each of them. This article supports the balanced view of the historic Central position on the Atonement.

Bro Islip Collyer explains the main causes for confusion and strife on the Atonement, all of which apply to these two polarised views;

“It may be helpful to take note of the main causes that have led brethren astray when they have tried to probe deeply into the doctrine of atonement. We may then be on our guard at least against these particular dangers.

“One cause has been through the tendency to confuse the shadow with the substance. Brethren have reasoned that the types of the law suggested such and such necessities and the sacrifice of Christ had to conform. The truth is, of course, exactly the other way. The work of Christ was the very central feature of the divine purpose and all the shadows of the law had to conform to it. The Apostle in writing to the Hebrews, truly reasons from the types forward to Christ, but he makes it plain that Christ is the substance. We recognize the writings of the Apostles as of precisely the same authority as the Old Testament scriptures. We do well therefore to take their plainest language as our guide and see that our understanding of types and symbols falls into line …

A second cause of confusion is the tendency to seek an explanation according to a human conception of logic and legality. … We do well therefore to remind each other of this simple truth, which forbids us to make any distinction between legal necessities and the divine will.

A third cause of confusion has been through the persistent use of phrases that are sometimes misleading.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

The Bible uses much metaphorical and figurative language in speaking about the Atonement and bro Islip Collyer goes on to outline the simple literal truth of the meaning of sacrifice.

“What is the literal truth revealed in the New Testament as to the meaning of sacrifice? It is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death. Whatever figurative or partly figurative language the Bible may use, this is the real meaning. Washed in his blood, our sins laid upon him, a bearing of our sins in his own body, the purchase of his blood, the ransom, his being delivered for our offences, the just for the unjust—all such expressions must be understood in harmony with the literal truth that God forgives. Transgressions of the divine law can only be put away by the forgiveness and forbearance of God. Physical uncleanness of nature can only be put away by the power of God. The sacrifice of Christ is the divinely appointed basis in which God in mercy and forbearance offers forgiveness and redemption to sinners (Rom. 3:23–4; 4:7; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14; 1 John 1:9; 2:12)”. (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

As bro Islip Collyer states, the simple demystified literal truth revealed in the New Testament as to the meaning of sacrifice “is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death”.

1. Transgressions of the divine law can only be put away by the forgiveness and forbearance of God.

2. Physical uncleanness of nature can only be put away by the power of God.

“The sacrifice of Christ is the divinely appointed basis in which God in mercy and forbearance offers forgiveness and redemption to sinners”.

The sacrifice of Christ, and in particular the shedding of his blood, is not to cleanse us from “sin in the flesh” and neither is it for the forgiveness of sins only at the exclusion of our immortalisation, as this is supposed to follow automatically as a result of forgiveness and not through the sacrifice of Christ. In fact blood shedding in sacrifice is for demonstrating the righteousness of God so he can offer forgiveness and immortality to those who believe in faith and repent.

As bro John Carter wrote, the sacrifice of Christ’s is the means by which both “the offer of the forgiveness of sins” and “the promise of life by the transformation of our bodies like unto the body of his glory” is made by God.

“The wondrous love of God in giving Jesus, his perfect obedience to the Father, even unto death on the cross, the offer of the forgiveness of sins, the promise of life by the transformation of our bodies like unto the body of his glory, the provision of one who ever liveth to make intercession for us, and who can save to the uttermost—these and kindred truths can be overlaid with cloudy and mystifying strifes of words, which dishearten the simple earnest believer, annoy the earnest seeker after the deeper things of divine truth, and destroy the soul enlarging and purifying effects which God intended the offering of His Son should produce. The love of Christ constrains to holiness, not to strife.” (The Christadelphian, July 1958. Unity Book p17)

Sacrifice or Atonement for Human Nature

The question of whether sacrifice or atonement is required for human nature, and in particular whether Jesus offered or atoned for his human nature, is one of the most confusing and misleading phraseology that both polarised sides use, and it is indicative of the extremes they have gone to in their thinking.

It is a foolish and unlearned question that only genders strife because there can be no correct answer to this. A “yes” answer implies the error of bro J. J. Andrews and “no” answer implies the error of Clean Flesh, yet both sides argue the positive or the negative to this question.

One polarised view argues that the shedding of Christ’s blood is for the forgiveness of sins only and is not for “human nature” or our immortalisation, because after the forgiveness of sins “immortalisation follows automatically as a result”. Therefore Christ was saved by his perfect obedience only and his sacrifice was not required for him apart from his obedience, as he committed no sin. The benefit he obtained from his sacrifice was that it was an act of obedience that was required by God and was not required for his immortalisation.

The other polarised view argues that the shedding of Christ’s blood cleanses believers from “sin in the flesh” and that Jesus’ sacrifice was required to cleanse Jesus from “sin in the flesh” for him to be saved.

The first use of this phraseology we could find was by bro John Bell as a retort when he was opposing the teachings of bro John Thomas and bro Robert Roberts.

“Jesus never offered any sacrifice for his human nature.” (The Shield, March 1922)

This type of language was never used by brethren in the Central fellowship to describe their beliefs about Christ offering for himself that it might be for us.

The problem with this phraseology is that it implies that the sacrifice of Christ is “for” something or not “for” something. It focuses on the sacrifice of Christ or the shedding of Christ’s blood as possessing some efficacy of itself to perform a function in some way.

Often, those who use this phraseology reason as if there is no other alternative than one of these two options, that Christ either sacrificed for human nature or did not sacrifice for human nature. But this is the wrong question and leads to error whichever way it is answered.

This type of thinking by both polarised views only serves to confuse the issue, and it reveals a lack of understanding on how the blood of Christ is efficacious. By focusing on technical arguments about what the shedding of Christ’s blood is “for” or not “for” the true significance of the shedding of Christ’s blood has been clouded, and the simple elements of the truth have been mystified.

This opposition to “sacrifice for human nature” is based on going too far in reaction to the extremes of bro J. J. Andrews teachings that the guilt and condemnation of Adam’s sin is inherited by us and that we need to be sacrificially cleansed from this “sin in the flesh” as well as our actual sins.

Clearly, bro J. J. Andrews teaching is an extreme of error and is a far cry from the belief that our immortalisation at the judgement seat is through the blood of Christ, as opposed to following automatically as a result of forgiveness with no relation to the shedding of Christ’s blood. But this idea of “sacrifice for human nature” is extended to include this belief as well, which takes it to a further extreme.

The idea that bloodshedding is for actual sins only and not for our immortalisation, and that it was not required for Jesus except as a matter of obedience, begs the question as to how bloodshedding is efficacious? How is it efficacious for the forgiveness of our sins while not being efficacious for our immortalisation?

How Sacrificial Bloodshedding is Efficacious

This type of thinking that focuses on what the blood is for or not for, implies that the blood of Christ has some intrinsic property or quality by which it performs a function or meets a legal requirement. Comments have been made about the quality of Jesus’ sacrificial blood in being able to save because it came from the body of a perfectly obedient man. Other comments have been made about the quality of Jesus’ blood to cleanse him from the defilement of “sin in the flesh”.

Bro Robert Roberts assessment of the blood of Christ was that it was just like ours and had no property or quality to perform a function to save of itself, and that it did not meet any legal requirement. In “The Blood of Christ” under the heading of “A Possibility of Looking Too Closely”, which is exactly the problem with what these two polarised views do, bro Robert Roberts writes;

“At the same time there is a possibility of looking too closely at the expression and thinking only of the blood, as some of these extreme sectarians do: “Only the blood for me”, say they. What do they mean? We must open our minds to understand. Literally, the blood of Christ which was shed on Calvary would be of no use to them. It trickled down his side; it oozed from his hands and feet; it gushed from the spear gash; and fell on the ground and dried like any other blood, and nobody could find it if they tried, and if they could, it would not be of any spiritual value. ...

There must be something wrong in such a close, limited, microscopic view. In a literal sense, the blood of Christ was the same blood as our own; as is said: “Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he himself likewise took part of the same”. As such, it could be of no benefit to any human being. It is not the blood as literal blood that is precious or efficacious, but its relation to something of which the blood-shedding is expressive.” (The Blood of Christ)

Bro Robert Roberts explains that the function of the shedding of Christ’s blood was to demonstrate the rightousness of God and that it had no efficacy of itself to save.

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”. The shedding of the blood was the ritual symbol of that truth; for the shedding of the blood was the taking away of the life.” (The Blood of Christ)

Bro Robert Roberts explains that it is only if we have faith in what the shedding of blood demonstrates and show faith in God’s righteousness by confessing and repenting of our sins, that God will forgive and save us from sin and death.

“God says now: “If you will recognise your position, repent, and come under that man’s wing, I will receive you back to favour and forgive you. My righteousness has been declared in him; I have crowned him with everlasting days; because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and was obedient unto death, I have crowned him with life eternal. It is in him for you if you will submit and believe in him and put on his name, which is a confession that you have no name of your own that will stand. Obey his commandments, and I will receive you and forgive you for his sake, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.” This is a splendid issue of kindness and wisdom. It is a different thing from the dry legality that would give us the blood of Christ as a sort of precious stuff, with which to touch ourselves and be pure. God operates in the whole transaction. We are cleansed from sin by this beautiful means, that God forgives us because of what Christ has done, if we will accept him and be baptised. In baptism we are provided with a ceremony in which we are baptised into his death, and in which, by a figure, we are washed from our sins in his blood. There is a connection in this view of the case, between what God offers us in Christ and our own acts. That is, the cleansing result of the atonement is dependent upon our compliances. You remember the expression—“If we walk in the light the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin”. If we do not walk in the light, it has no power which shows that the blood of Christ is not the magical thing represented by orthodox religion; nor the automatic legally operative thing to which it is degraded by some theories, nor the powerless thing thought of by mere moralists, who put the blood of Christ entirely on one side. It is the ritual element in the act or ceremony which the living, loving, wise Author of the universe has established as the basis of reconciliation between Himself and those who have wandered far from Him into the ways of death. It is He who applies the results of faith being exercised in His appointment. It is the expression of His justice in the process of justifying those who believe.” (The Blood of Christ)

Bro Robert Roberts shows that it is God who “operates in the whole transaction” not the blood. The the blood of Christ does nor perform any function or meet any legal requirement. He gives a very good example of the literal meaning of a metaphorical statement in the Bible that shows that “the cleansing result of the atonement is dependent upon our compliances” by faith. In 1 John 1:7 it says “the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin”. The literal meaning of this metaphorical statement is in 1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”.

This is exactly the same as Romans 3:25-26, that the shedding of Christ’s blood was to demonstrate the righteousness of God and that it is by our “faith in his blood” in the righteousness of God it demonstrates, that God can be right and just in forgiving the sins of the unjust. This is what bro Robert Roberts means by “It is not the blood as literal blood that is precious or efficacious, but its relation to something of which the blood-shedding is expressive”.

Bro John Carter made this point in his address on “The Atonement” that is printed in the Australian Unity Book.

“So the Apostle brings together the fact that we are to come boldly to the throne of grace. It was a throne, let us not forget that. A throne in which the principles of God’s holiness were upheld as a condition of man’s approach through the ritual ceremony of shed blood. So in Romans 3:25 the Apostle goes on: “to be a propitiation (mercy seat) through faith” (that is our response to what God has done) “in his blood”. At once we must go back to the ritual type again and ask what does this mean? The blood of the animal was a token of life taken and an identification of the man with the animal; by placing his hands upon its head and saying in effect: This is what ought to happen to me; I’m taking its life but I’m the sinner and death is due to me. It becomes the ritual expression of the fact that the man recognises that death was due for sin.” (The Unity Book p25)

This is why bro Islip Collyer emphasises that the sacrifice of Christ requires a moral explanation on the basis of faith in the righteousness of God it demonstrated.

“If we ask why God required such a sacrifice, we must seek a moral explanation. It is no answer to quote the law which expresses His will.

Guided by Scripture we can find a moral explanation that satisfies every demand that the intelligence can make. The perfect sacrifice was required that the flesh might be effectively repudiated, that sin might be conquered and condemned, that the righteousness and holiness of God might be declared, and that sinful man should be humbled without a particle of ground for boasting being left to him (Rom. 3:23–27; 8:3; Eph. 2:1–9).

God made it clear even in ancient times that humanity could not approach to Him at all except with humble faith and on the basis of blood shedding.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

God’s Condemnation of Sin in the Flesh

In “The Blood of Christ”, after pointing out that it is not the literal blood of Christ that is efficacious but what it is expressive of, he points out that the body of Christ and the death of Christ are equally efficacious and are synonymous with the sacrifice of Christ.

“It is not the blood as literal blood that is precious or efficacious, but its relation to something of which the blood-shedding is expressive.

Other Apostolic Definitions of the Atonement

“If there is anything that proves this conclusively, it is the fact that the same efficacy is associated with the body of Christ in apostolic phraseology. Let us see the evidence of this fact. [He then quotes Hebrews 10:10, Colossians 1:21, Ephesians 2:16, 1 Peter 2:24, 1 Corinthinans 10:16, 11:29]

If it was all “the blood” in the way that people talk, there would be no place for this other series of expressions concerning the body of Christ.

And now there is another series of expressions which carries the same modifying consideration with it, forbidding us to confine our thoughts to the blood of Christ, or to think of it as something magical in itself, and showing us a larger thought. The expression I refer to is “Death”. [He then quotes Hebrews 9:15, 2;9, 14, Romans 5:10, 1 Corinthians 11:26]

Here are several synonymous expressions that demand some other understanding of the matter than that exhibited in popular preaching. Such an understanding we shall find by the system of the Truth as revived in our age by the instrumentality of Dr. Thomas, giving us a simple central idea in which these various expressions converge—“the blood of Christ”, “the offering of the body of Christ”, “the death of Christ”. (The Blood of Christ)

The “offering of the body of Christ”, “the death of Christ” and “the blood of Christ” are synonymous expressions used to describe the sacrifice of Christ. The efficacy of the sacrifice of Christ is through faith in what these terms are expressive of, viz. the principles of the righteousness of God and the condemnation of sin in the flesh.

In defining sin in the flesh, bro Islip Collyer is clear that sin is not a literal element in the flesh but that there is a “a derived or secondary sense of the word” as a figure of speech by metonymy to describe the natural desires of the flesh “that bring forth sin”. This is the diabolos in human nature.

“When we speak of “sin” in the flesh we use the phrase just as the Apostle used it in Romans 7. Obviously it is a derived or secondary sense of the word, for the primary meaning of sin is transgression of divine law. It is a similar extension of meaning to that of the word death for poison when they said, “there is death in the pot”. The Apostle speaks of a law in his members which wars against the laws of God and leads to transgression. He calls this physical weakness “sin” in the flesh or “sin” that dwelleth in me. It is the diabolos in human nature, the natural desires of the flesh which, if they are allowed to “conceive”, “bring forth sin”. We need not argue as to whether there is such a law. We all know it only too well. We are born with it and if we give way to any sin we correspondingly strengthen the evil desire in that direction and thus make “sin” in the flesh more active.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

Bro Islip Collyer is clear that Sin is not a literal element in the flesh but “a derived or secondary sense of the word” as a figure of speech by metonymy to describe the natural lusts of the flesh “that bring forth sin”. This is the diabolos in human nature that Jesus destroyed in his death. This is the “sin” that God condemned in the flesh of Jesus when he died as a sacrifice, which is the source of sinful acts.

This is more literally described in Galatians 5:24 as having “crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts and affections” which is a moral lesson for us in identifying with Christ in faith. The word “sin” is used by metonymy to describe the very literal lusts that reside in the flesh of mortal human nature that are the source of sin.

Literally, the "sin" that God condemned in “the flesh” of Jesus by his sacrificial death are the impulses and tendencies to sin in his mortal human nature that he shared with us. This was the was the complete bruising of the head of the serpent in the complete destruction and condemnation of the source of sin, the lusts that are part of human nature in the flesh. There is no literal element of Sin in the flesh, as the Birmingham Arranging Brethren (of whom bro C. C. Walker was one) pointed out to a correspondent.

“No one, so far as we are aware, has said that “sin” is a literal element, that was, as it were, hypodermically injected by God into Adam after he had sinned; but evil in the flesh being the result of sin, flesh itself is metonymically called “sin” as we see in 2 Cor. 5:21. “He (God) hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.” (Birmingham Arranging Brethren, The Christadelphian, October 1911)

Bro C. C. Walker explains the logical and grammatical sense of Romans 8:3 and shows that “sin in the flesh” is not a term.

“Rom. 8:3 is a difficult passage to understand, and the words “sin in the flesh” do not, in our judgment, constitute a “term” in the passage, either in the logical or grammatical sense. The main grammatical “terms” in the case—the subject and predicate—stripped of all adjuncts are these:—“God condemned.” Sin is the object of condemnation. Write it with a capital to harmonise with the figure of personification that runs through the whole of Paul’s argument here, and to harmonise also with the doctrine of Jesus Christ concerning the “casting out” “judgment” or condemnation of “the Prince of this World” which is Sin (John 12:31: 14:30: 16:11). This he enunciated when he was about to offer the sacrifice for sin of which Paul is speaking in Rom. 8. Persons are “condemned,” not abstractions. The words “in the flesh” are the extension of the predicate, the focus of the “casting out” “judgment” or “condemnation.”” (The Christadelphian, February 1929)

Bro Robert Roberts explains the primary and secondary use of the word “sin” in “The Blood of Christ”.

“And now we have to consider in what sense did Christ come in sinful flesh. There are two things involved in these expressions that require carefully separating in order to understand their bearing on the questions that have been raised. Sin, in the primary and completest sense, is disobedience. In this sense, there was no sin in Christ. But where is the source of disobedience? In the inclinations that are inherent in the flesh. Without these, there would be no sin. Hence it is (because they are the cause of sin) that they are sometimes spoken of as sin. As where Paul speaks in Rom. 7 of “Sin that dwelleth in me” and “The motions of sin in my members” etc. These inclinations are so described in contrast to the Spirit nature in which there are no inclinations leading to sin. It is only in this sense that Christ “was made sin”, which Paul states (2 Cor. 5:21). He was made in all points like to his brethren, and therefore of a nature experiencing the infirmities leading to temptation: “Tempted in all points like them but without sin”. All this is testified (Heb. 2:17; 4:15). He has also come under the dominion of sin in coming under the hereditary power of death which is the wages of sin. He was in this sense made part of the sin constitution of things, deriving from his mother both the propensities that lead to sin and the sentence of death that was passed because of sin. He was himself absolutely sinless as to disobedience, while subject to the impulses and the consequences of sin. The object was to open a way out of this state, both for himself and his brethren, by death and resurrection after trial. It pleased God to require the ceremonial condemnation of this sin-nature in crucifixion in the person of a righteous possessor of it, as the basis of our forgiveness.” (The Blood of Christ)

Bro Robert Roberts makes the point that Jesus was specifically sent in mortal human nature suffering the effects of sin with “The object was to open a way out of this state, both for himself and his brethren, by death and resurrection after trial”. Jesus was fully involved in his sacrifice and benefited from its operation as our representative, not just as an act of obedience with no need of the sacrifice for himself.

Isolating Jesus From His Redemptive Work

The main reason for confusion and division on the relationship of Christ to his death on the cross is caused by speculative reasoning based on isolating Jesus from his redemptive work. Any speculation on this will inevitably lead to error and this is at the root of these two polarised views.

In “Pushing Inquiry too Far” bro Islip Collyer asks the very question these two polarised views are in contention over, “Did Jesus have to die simply because God willed it as an act of obedience or was it necessary for the cleansing of his sin-nature?” This question is based on isolating Jesus from his redemptive work and considering him alone.

“The question has been asked ‘If Jesus had been the only member of the human race to be saved, would he still have had to undergo a sacrificial death?’ I do not regard that as in any way a legitimate question. It simply means if God’s purpose had been different in one particular, would it have been the same in all others? God’s laws are simply the expression of His will, and they are made to suit His purpose as it is—not as it might have been. …

The fact is, this trying to isolate Jesus from his redemptive work is most mischievous, and it is indicative of an extraordinary narrowness of view. If it be recognized that sacrifice is necessary simply because God wills it, it is obviously impossible to say what might have been required if circumstances had been different. It has been stated, however, that this refusal to contemplate Jesus apart from his redemptive work is tantamount to an evasion of the question, and it has been asked again, ‘Did Jesus have to die simply because God willed it as an act of obedience or was it necessary for the cleansing of his sin-nature?’ Here again we have the fallacious distinction between the will of God and the law of God. What is moral cleansing but God forgiving our sins? What is physical cleansing but God changing our nature? Sacrifice is necessary for both, because God chooses to make it so. This was shown by the Mosaic law, the types of which clearly indicate that no human being could enter the holiest of all without a perfect sacrifice; the way being blocked by the veil of flesh which had to be rent. Therefore, in the purpose of God, Jesus had to die for himself before his nature could be cleansed, and he in that way obtained eternal redemption. This is plain and simple; but when a brother begins to speculate on what might have been, there is no telling where he will end. We have been asked what would have happened if Jesus alone was to be saved, what God would have done if men had been able to keep the law perfectly, what would have occurred if Adam had not sinned—and the whole matter has been so hacked up and befogged that some who are unable to see through the maze have been driven to despair, while others, seizing on a single idea in the realm of what might have been, are driven into serious error. …

Q. Was Christ’s sacrifice necessary for the cleansing of his nature, as well as for others ?

A. Yes, the holiest place of all could not be entered without a perfect sacrifice, and so Christ was raised to immortality “by the blood of the everlasting covenant”. (“Pushing Inquiry Too Far” The Christadelphian, December 1898)

The simple answer from bro Islip Collyer to this question “‘Did Jesus have to die simply because God willed it as an act of obedience or was it necessary for the cleansing of his sin-nature?’ is that “Sacrifice is necessary for both, because God chooses to make it so”.

He explains that cleansing by Christ’s sacrifice is not literal but is metaphorical language for what God does, “What is moral cleansing but God forgiving our sins? What is physical cleansing but God changing our nature?” The cleansing bro Islip Collyer is speaking about is not a literal cleansing performed by the function of blood shedding in Christ’s sacrifice, but a metaphorical cleansing by God’s power in the forgiveness of sins and the bestowal of immortality on the basis of Christ’s sacrifice.

This applies to Christ as well as us because he makes the point that it is God’s will that “no human being (which includes Christ) could enter the holiest of all without a perfect sacrifice; the way being blocked by the veil of flesh”. He says the same thing in “The Meaning of Sacrifice” that “all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race, (which includes Christ), should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice”.

“Now whether we take the plain language of the Apostles (Heb. 11:12; 10:20) or the prophecies and types of the law, the teaching is that all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice (Lev. 16:2–14—note seven times of sprinkling). (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

Confusion is caused when Christ is considered alone, apart from his redemptive work and going to extremes.

“Much controversy has been caused by the question as to whether Christ offered for his own cleansing. It has been largely a war of words, due on the one hand to a fear of saying or subscribing to anything derogatory to Christ and on the other hand perhaps a tendency to relapse into the old exaggeration of “original sin”. There ought not to be a minute’s difficulty in dealing with the question and securing agreement. …

Some have caused confusion by arguing as to whether Christ’s offering for himself was “only a matter of obedience to God” or whether it was something more. What do they mean? Obedience to God is carrying out the will of God. What can be required beyond this? Surely we are all agreed that Christ, “the beloved son”, “the servant in whom God delighted”, and the one who “always did his Father’s will”, needed no forgiveness. Surely we are also agreed that he needed cleansing from the sin-stricken nature in which he wrestled with and conquered the diabolos.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

Both polarised views consider Christ apart from his redemptive work. The view that Christ was saved by perfect obedience only without actual need of his sacrifice is based on considering this and bro Robert Roberts is selectively quoted to misrepresent him as supporting this view.

“without setting aside the fact that he partook of our mortal nature and was redeemed from death because of his obedience. That answer is that in the matter of personal offences, the death of Christ was not for himself but for us. He was absolutely without sin. . . . ‘For himself’ it was unnecessary that he should have been nailed to the tree, except as part of the obedience the Father required at his hands. It was ‘for us’ he was thus slain”. (The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 554, and 1894, p. 467).

• In the Andrews Roberts Debate, Question No. 284, “Did Christ require to die for himself?” Answer: “In view of the work he came to do, yes; but if there had been himself only, No.”

• In The Slain Lamb “If there had been a Jew who had kept the law in all things, having done the will of the Father from the very beginning of life to the end of his life, he would have been in the very position of the Lord Jesus himself; it would have been in his power, by dying, to cleanse himself from the Adamic condemnation, and his righteousness would have caused his resurrection from the dead.” (The Slain Lamb)

The basis for the other polarised view that “Christ was cleansed from ‘sin in the flesh’ by His sacrifice” is also based on separating Christ from his redemptive work in that if Christ was the only one to be saved that he would need his sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in the flesh.

All through the Roberts Andrews debate bro J. J. Andrews tried to get bro Robert Roberts to answer questions based on separating Christ from his redemptive work but he resisted this, as he explains when the Advocate magazine alleged that bro Robert Roberts had changed his mind from his previous stance with Renunciationist Clean Flesh.

“B. M.—It is a total misapprehension on the part of the Advocate to allege or suggest that we have altered our position with regard to the sacrifice of Christ. We hold absolutely by all we wrote 20 years ago at the time of the Renunciationist controversy. It is all on record for inspection, and the London debate will be found in absolute harmony with it. Where it might for a moment seem otherwise is where we refused to consider the case of Christ apart from the race for whose salvation he was brought into being. The reason for this is explicitly stated in the answers 393, and from 706 to 724—namely, that if there had been no human race to save, there would have been no Christ; and if there had been, he would not have been in the position he stood in as a member of that race. Even in the Renunciationist tussle, we recognised this reasonable distinction (see article in Christadelphian for March, 1875 page 139, the very heading of which is “For himself that it might be for us.”) Run through the Christadelphian for 1874 or 1875, and you will find abundant corroboration of what we now say. If you want particular reference, see Christadelphian, 1873, pages 402–409; also 434 to 468 (The Slain Lamb); Christadelphian for 1874, page 139; also 140–2; and many other places too numerous for citation.” (The Christadelphian, September 1894)

Some of bro Robert Roberts answers to these questions “where it might for a moment seem otherwise” are selectively quoted to portray him as considering Christ alone apart from his redemptive work, to support the view that Christ was saved by perfect obedience only without actual need of his sacrifice without reference to his general teachings or his explanation here.

Bro Islip Collyer puts the balance of the matter by explaining God’s will in sacrifice without separating Christ from his redemptive work but including him in it.

“Now whether we take the plain language of the Apostles (Heb. 11:12; 10:20) or the prophecies and types of the law, the teaching is that all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice (Lev. 16:2–14—note seven times of sprinkling). …

There could be no forgiveness for personal sinners except on the basis of the perfect sacrifice, for this was the will of God. There could be no cleansing and immortalizing, no entry into the Most Holy by any of Adam’s race, except on the basis of the same perfect sacrifice, for that also was the will of God. Christ came to do God’s will, he was obedient in all things even unto death, and so with his own blood—in other words, on the basis of his perfect offering—he entered the Most Holy “having obtained eternal redemption”. …

The will of God determines everything. It was the will of God that none of our sin-stricken race should enter His holy presence except on the basis of the most complete repudiation of the flesh involved in a perfect obedience even unto death. He provided the strength necessary for this great work and it was for this purpose that Christ was born. Thus through the blood of the everlasting Covenant he was brought again from the dead. With his own blood he entered the Most Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, and we, if we are faithful, can stand at last “washed from our sins in his blood” and covered with his righteousness. All these figures mean that God accepts, forgives and cleanses His people on the basis of the perfect life and death of His Anointed Son.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

Bro Islip Collyer is clear that Jesus is included in his sacrifice and was himself saved through the redemption he obtained in it.

• … all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice.

• There could be no cleansing and immortalizing, no entry into the Most Holy by any of Adam’s race, except on the basis of the same perfect sacrifice, for that also was the will of God.

• It was the will of God that none of our sin-stricken race should enter His holy presence except on the basis of the most complete repudiation of the flesh involved in a perfect obedience even unto death.

When we understand that sacrifice, and in particular bloodshedding, is efficacious through faith there should be no problem with accepting that Christ was saved from mortality by his sacrifice because of his “faith in his blood”. He was fully involved in his sacrifice, not aside from it as an act of obedience only.

It is only when brethren base their reasoning on the hypothetical question “Supposing Christ had been the only one to be saved, would he still have had to die a sacrificial death?” that error and imbalance occurs.

“The truth is that when brethren who are agreed as to these fundamentals still argue and suspect each other of being “unsound”, they are really in their minds raising that old question of twenty-five years ago, “Supposing Christ had been the only one to be saved, would he still have had to die a sacrificial death? Everyone ought to have learned long ago that this question is not legitimate. It is asking, “If the will of God had been totally different in one direction, would it have remained the same in another closely related matter?” There is only one proper answer to such a question. No one knows what the will of God would have been if His purpose had been other than it is, and only a presumptuous man would claim to know.

We have to do with the purpose of God as it is and as it is revealed to us. These truths are so simple and withal so beautiful that unless brethren insist on a misleading form of words making for strife, there should be no difficulty in agreeing.” (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

For Himself That It Might Be For Us

Controversy caused by considering Christ alone separately from his redemptive work caused bro Robert Roberts to coin the phrase “for himself that it might be for us”. It was to explain that Christ was only sent by God made as a man yet Son of God for God’s particular purpose in saving sinners to be righteous like him.

Therefore, to consider Christ apart from his redemptive work is nothing but hypothetical speculation that can only lead to error. God made Jesus in mortal human nature for the express purpose of saving us by saving himself first.

“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.

If we limit our view to the individual “man Christ Jesus”, and look at him in the light of what is due to individual character as between man and man according to the “justice” of common parlance, we may have a difficulty in seeing how the righteousness of God was declared in the scourging and death of a righteous man. But this is not looking at the subject in the light in which it is prophetically and apostolically exhibited. It is not looking at it in the character that belongs to it. 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, “I 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.

It only remains that we realize how completely the fact is in harmony with the statement. We cannot see this unless we recognize that Jesus was a wearer of Adam’s condemned nature, and the bearer of the sins of the people—not that Christ might be punished for others, but that God’s righteousness might be declared for others to recognize, that they might be forgiven. The gospel provides an opportunity of close identification with what was done: “Buried with him by baptism into death”; “Crucified with Christ”, In this posture, they receive the remission of sins “through the forbearance of God” (Rom. 3:25). This is the other great fact of the case—God’s forbearance, His kindness, His readiness to pardon when His claims are conceded.

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?” (“The Consecration of Aaron and Sons”, The Law of Moses)

And so bro Robert Roberts makes the point early in “The Blood of Christ” that Jesus was sent as our representative to obtain eternal redemption through his own blood for himself first, in order to obtain it for us.

“ … Christ himself is exhibited to us as coming under the beneficial operation of his own death, thus: Heb. 13:20—“The God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, THROUGH THE BLOOD OF THE EVERLASTING COVENANT”. This is stated perhaps still more clearly in Heb. 9:12, in a passage we have already considered, but it has a new bearing here: “Neither by the blood of goats or calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us”. You will observe that the two words, “for us”, are not in the original. They are added to the translation, and they are added in defiance of grammatical propriety. The verb is in the middle voice, and the meaning of this is remarkable in this connection. We have no middle voice in English: we have passive or active voice: you either do or are done to in English; but in Greek, there is another voice—a middle voice—a state of the verb in which you do a thing to yourself. “Having obtained in himself eternal redemption.” In Phil. 2:8 we have the idea more literally expressed—“He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him.” (The Blood of Christ)

In his synopsis on the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ”, bro Robert Roberts makes it clear that “Christ was himself saved in the Redemption he wrought out for us” and that “it was necessary that he should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented”.

“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” (Jno. 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 obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the 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, etc.” (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 said unto him, etc.” (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).”. (The Christadelphian, December 1937)

Yet both of these polarised views do not properly understand how “as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that (Jesus) should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented”. One view takes it to an extreme as his cleansing from literal “sin in the flesh”.

The other view denies that Jesus was the anti-typical High Priest who offered “for himself as well as for those whom he represented.” In fact, this view misuses bro Robert Roberts phrase “for himself that it might be for us” to teach that the shedding of Christ’s blood was not required for himself except insofar as it involved his compliance with God’s will as a matter of obedience. In doing this, they disconnect him from his own sacrifice in that he did not directly obtain any benefit from it, but that the benefit he received was aside from his sacrifice as an act of obedience only.

Because both of these views use mechanical and legalistic reasoning, they fail to appreciate that it was God who saved Christ, and he did so through his sacrifice by his “faith in his blood” which his perfect obedience demonstrated. When he was baptised, Jesus identified in faith with the shedding of his blood in his sacrifice in which he would “fulfil all righteousness” and his life of perfect righeousness and obedience was the outworking of his faith.

Christ’s sacrifice was operative on himself first through his “faith in his blood” that demonstrated the righteousness of God. He was not disconnected from his sacrifice as if he was saved by his perfect obedience only, with no need for the shedding of his blood for himself apart from it being an act of obedience.

It was by his “faith in his blood” that Jesus “obtained eternal redemption” in and for himself “by his own blood” and “entered in once into the holy place”. It was by his “faith in his blood” that God brought from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through “the blood of the everlasting covenant” and “he was saved out of death”. All of this for “for us” to fulfil the will of God.

In his article “Winds of Doctrine”, bro John Carter says that “any theory which does not find a place for all the facts is either incomplete or wrong” and this certainly applies to both of these polarised views.

“Because Jesus partook of our nature, he shared redemption. He was “saved out of death”; he “obtained eternal redemption”; “by his own blood he entered in once for all into the holy place”; he was “brought again from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant.” “By man came the resurrection from the dead” (Heb. 5:7; 9:12; 13:20; 1 Cor. 15:21). These testimonies plainly declare that Jesus benefited by his own death. It is essential to ascertain the facts that are clearly stated in Scripture; and any theory which does not find a place for all the facts is either incomplete or wrong.” (The Christadelphian, November 1943)

The view that the shedding of Christ’s blood was not required for himself except insofar as it involved his compliance with God’s will as a matter of obedience, does not adequately explain how Christ’s blood is so inextricably linked to his own redemption in the Scriptures.

As bro Islip Collyer points out “Thus through the blood of the everlasting Covenant he was brought again from the dead. With his own blood he entered the Most Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption“. (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)

The only explanation that adequately explains how Christ’s blood is so inextricably linked to his own redemption in Scripture is that of bro Robert Roberts which was reiterated by bro C. C. Walker and bro John Carter. Unlike these two polarised views, bro Robert Roberts explanation finds a place for all the facts of Scripture.

When refuting the accusation that he had changed his mind in the Andrews Roberts debate because he didn’t go to bro J. J. Andrews’extremes, bro Robert Roberts referred to an article he wrote in 1875 entitled “For Himself that it Might Be For Us”. In this article he specifically explains how Christ was the anti-typical High Priest who offered “for himself as well as for those whom he represented”.

“J.W.C.—The statement of Paul in Heb. 7:27 is, that 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.” But there is all the difference between the two cases that there always is between shadow and substance. Christ’s “own sins” were not like the sins of the priests; they were not sins of his own committing. He was without sin, so far as his own actions were concerned. Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people—whether “in Adam” or otherwise, he stood in the position of having these as “his own,” from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered. Consequently, he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered. He is “Christ the first fruits.” He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the Greek verb euramenoz (Heb. 9:12) implies. (The “for us” is not in the original.) He was brought again from the dead “through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”—(Heb. 13:20.) But this 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 himself. “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Yet, though combined, the two relations of the act are visibly separate. Christ was the first saved from death (Heb. 5:9); “afterwards, they that are Christ’s at his coming.”—(1 Cor. 15:23.) In this way the Mosaic type has its counterpart. There is no inconsistency whatever between these facts and the constant declaration that “Christ died for us.” All that Christ was and did was “for us.” It was “for us” he was born; “for us” he bore sin; “for us” he came under the curse of the law; “for us” he died; and the fact that personally he was without sin where all were transgressors, gives all the more point to the declaration. It was “for us” that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself. The “for us” does not deny that what he submitted to “for us” was our own position. “He was made sin for us who knew no sin;” and does not sin require an offering? … It is “for himself that it might be for them.” He is now “separate from them,” but he was not so in the first instance.” (The Christadelphian, March 1875)

Bro Robert Roberts phrase “for himself that it might be for us” carries the meaning as he expressed it of “It was “for us” that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself”. This is very different to the view that the shedding of Christ’s blood was not required for himself except insofar as it involved his compliance with God’s will as a matter of obedience. Yet those who hold this view use this phrase “for himself that it might be for us” in support of their view and discount bro Robert Roberts exposition as incorrect.

Bro John Carter followed the position of bro Robert Roberts that he identified as “the scriptural one”. He did not go lean towards clean flesh or the Berean view.

“We mention this because it has already been said that we now advocate what is described as “clean flesh”. This is not true. Neither is it true that in opposing these theories of alienation we have changed our view. We studied the arguments by writers on both sides very carefully forty years ago: we saw then that bro. Roberts’ position was the scriptural one.” (The Christadelphian, August 1958)

He said that bro Robert Roberts constant view on the Atonement was expressed in his writings after the Andrews Roberts Debate. These are the views that bro John Carter maintained on the Lord’s relationship to his own death and his offering for himself that it might be for us.

“Bro. Roberts’ constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy is to be found in The Law of Moses, chapters 18 (The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons), 27 (Disease), and 28 (Death); The Blood of Christ; and in certain comments and a synopsis reproduced in The Christadelphian, Dec., 1937, which he drew up to meet theories he met in Australia.” (The Christadelphian, September 1947)

Bro John Carter follows the exact same reasoning as bro Robert Roberts in these writings of his when clarifying the difficulties on the Atonement in Australia in 1958. He points out that the shedding of Christ’s blood is inextricably linked to his own redemption “as affirmed in Scripture”, but that “the confusion arises when we isolate him from his work” and that “He did these things for himself that it might be for us“ therfore “we must accept what is written concerning his benefit from his own work, while on the other hand we keep clearly in mind that the purpose of it all was that we might be saved through him“.

“Another cause of difficulty arises out of the Lord’s relationship to his own death. It is affirmed in Scripture that “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption”; and that “God brought from the dead the great Shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant”; and that he was saved out of death. He needed redemption; he needed salvation from death. The confusion arises when we isolate him from his work. He was there to be our Saviour, and but for our needs we may reverently say he would not have been there. God purposed that as by man came death, by man must come resurrection. He must be one who died but whose resurrection was assured. God set him forth to declare His righteousness, that identifying ourselves with him we subscribe to the declaration of God’s righteousness made by him. He did these things for himself that it might be for us. We are not entitled to say what he would have had to do had he stood alone—that is purely hypothetical, neither may we say that because God required his death in the given circumstances in becoming our Saviour, God would have required the same under different conditions. We do not know. On the one hand we must accept what is written concerning his benefit from his own work, while on the other hand we keep clearly in mind that the purpose of it all was that we might be saved through him.” (The Christadelphian, July 1958. Unity Book p17)

Bro John Carter’s clarification of the Atonement issues in Australia parallels that of a similar clarification he made in 1939 of the issues in America on the Atonement because of the Clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler. In it, he particularly references bro Roberts synopsis on the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ” and accompanying comments, as “to what we believe to be the true teaching of the Bible on these subjects” which “doctrines have been maintained since the revival of the Truth nearly 100 years ago, and are set forth in the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”.

In 1937 bro John Carter used bro Robert Roberts synopsis on the Atonement in “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ” as a “restatement of our position on the subject of the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ … for the double reason that they are clear and lucid and well supported by scripture references” (The Christadelphian, December 1937) Below is bro John Carter’s clarification of the Atonement in 1939 which mirrors his clarification in The Christadelphian, July 1958. Unity Book p17.

“The Scriptures define sin, in the primary sense, as transgression of God’s law (1 John 3:4) or, as in the R.V. with a closer reproduction of the original, “sin is lawlessness.” In a few passages of Scripture the word “sin” is used in a secondary sense, by metonymy, of human nature. As Paul could speak of “sin that dwelleth in me” so he could describe the nature in which dwells “the law of sin” as “sin,” inasmuch as it inevitably produces sin in all, with the exception of the Lord Jesus who always obeyed God. Thus Paul says, “God made Jesus to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor., 5:21); again, “He shall appear the second time apart from sin” (Heb. 9:28 R.V.).

“Jesus possessed our nature, which is a condemned nature. Because of this he shared in the benefits of his own sacrifice, as Paul declares:—

Heb. 7:27: “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. 9:12: “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. 9:23: “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.”

Heb. 13:20:“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.”

Therefore, it is testified that “he obtained eternal redemption” and that “he was saved out of death” (Heb. 9:12; 5:7–9).

We believe that we cannot consider Jesus alone in this matter, but must always remember that he was “the arm of the Lord,” raised up for the work of reconciliation of mankind who are perishing. God set forth Jesus to declare His righteousness as a condition for the forgiveness of sins in the exercise of His mercy. To effect those objects it was necessary that Jesus should be of our nature, yet sinless. If he had not been of our nature which is under condemnation he could not have righteously died: had he not been sinless he could not have been raised from death to everlasting life. The wisdom of God is shown in the raising up of a Son who, though tempted and tried like all of his brethren, was yet without sin; who, therefore, by the shedding of his blood confirmed the new covenant for the remission of sins and obtained eternal redemption for himself and for us.” (The Christadelphian, May 1939)

Bro John Carter clearly believed the same as bro Robert Roberts and endorsed his teaching on Hebrews 7:27 and Jesus’ offering “for himself that it might be for us”. In his book “The Letter to the Hebrews” bro John Carter clearly supported the views of bro Robert Roberts and frequently quotes from “The Law of Moses”.

Bro John Carter’s exposition on Hebrews 7 follows the historic Central position on the Atonement expounded by Bro Robert Roberts and bro C. C. Walker.

“The ministry of this high priest surpasses that of the high priests under the law. They offered an annual sacrifice on the day of Atonement. Christ’s ministry is daily, but he does not therefore need a daily sacrifice. His one sacrifice is sufficient for all time, emphatically once for all.

Aaron offered “for his own sins, and then for the people’s,” in his annually repeated offerings. But “this” Jesus did once. What does “this” denote? Grammatically it is a disputed point. Two opinions by equally eminent scholars might be put side by side. “‘This’ refers only to offerings for the people” (Davidson). “‘This’ implies all that follows ‘offer up’” (Nairne).

Certainly Paul did not mean that Jesus had need to offer for personal sins. He has affirmed that he was “without sin” (4:15); and in the context here he speaks of him as holy and guileless. That there was a sense in which he must offer for himself would appear from the fact that Aaron had so to do before he offered for the people; and Jesus is the antitype. If it should be said that this was a necessary preparation in Aaron’s case, it might be asked was there no necessary preparation in Christ’s case. We get a clue in the words of Peter: “who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). He was there as a representative, partaking of the nature that was common to all—a nature under sentence of death because of sin. He died to declare God’s righteousness, as Paul says (Rom. 3:21–26); and this could not have been done if he could not righteously have died.

All the sacrifices of the law meet in him, including that which Aaron offered for himself as well as that which he offered for the people. But all the sacrifices are included in his one offering. All concern redemption in one phase or another; and while Jesus is the redeemer he is so because he has obtained redemption (Heb. 9:12). The facts are not affected by whichever view is taken of what Paul meant by “this.” (The Letter to the Hebrews, ch 7, John Carter)

In his exposition on Hebrews 9 he quotes bro Robert Roberts from the section on “The Court of the Tabernacle” in “The Law of Moses”.

“There is an involution of idea in the tabernacle type. Viewed as a structure irrespective of the priestly work connected with the two parts of the tabernacle, it is a figure of the way of approach to God. The holy place, in keeping with it being the place of service of the mortal priests, is a figure of the mortal life of the saints. They are constituents of the tabernacle of God. The shewbread speaks of the Bread of God which came down from heaven; the candlestick—the enlightenment of the Word; the altar of incense—the prayers of the saints. The veil is Christ in the days of his flesh. Beyond is the immortal state; the law within the ark, the uncorrupted manna, and the rod that budded, all telling of immortality.

The whole from this point of view is thus summarised by Brother Roberts: “The analogy of the Mosaic parable to the realities in Christ is complete. The process of drawing men from alienation to glorification is clearly discernible in all its appointments. Humility of mind—circumcision of heart—enters the Christgateway, on receiving the gospel; offers the Christ-sacrifice, in being baptised into the death of Christ, washes in the Christlaver in coming under the purifying power of his commandments; enters the preliminary “holy” place of the divine Tabernacle, in becoming a member of the body of Christ; to radiate the candlestick light of the truth, and offer the incense-sacrifice of praise continually, and eat of the bread of Israel’s hope, and wait for the manifestation of the glory of God in the great Day of Atonement, when all things reconciled will be gathered together in the “holiest” under one head—even Christ: and the true tabernacle of God will be with men, and there shall be no more curse and no more pain and no more death” (Law of Moses, p. 153–4).” (The Letter to the Hebrews, Heb 9, John Carter)

In his exposition on Hebrews 9 he also quotes bro Robert Roberts from the sections on “The Covenant at Sinai”, “The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons”, and “The Final Dedication” in “The Law of Moses”.

“It is important to observe that these heavenly things stood in need of cleansing; and undoubtedly Christ is part of the heavenly things. As brother Roberts says, “The phrase ‘the heavenly things’ is an expression covering all the high, holy, and exalted things of which the Mosaic pattern was but a foreshadowing. They are all comprehended in Christ, who is the nucleus from which all will be developed, the foundation on which all will be built. The statement is therefore a declaration that it was necessary that Christ should first of all be purified with better sacrifices than the Mosaic: ‘Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place’; ‘not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us’” (Law of Moses, page 92).

“There must therefore be a sense in which Christ (the antitypical Aaron, the antitypical altar, the antitypical mercyseat, 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 . . .

“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’?

“Great difficulty is experienced by various classes 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.’ ‘It was of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.’ ‘By reason hereof, he ought as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.’ ‘By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption’ (Heb. 9:23: 8:3 : 5:3 : 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 authorised to offer to other men a partnership in his right, subject to required conditions.

“How to effect this blending and poising of apparently opposing principles and differing requirements; mercy and justice: forgiveness and righteousness: goodness and severity, would have been impossible for human wisdom. It has not been impossible with God, to whom all things are possible. We see the perfect adjustment of all the apparently incompatible elements of the problem in His work in Christ, ‘who of God, is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and redemption’ (1 Cor. 1:30)” (pages 171–173).

“Under apostolic guidance, we see Christ both in the bullock, in the furniture, in the veil, in the high priest, and in brief, in all these Mosaic ‘patterns,’ which he says were ‘a shadow of things to come.’ All were both atoning and atoned for. There is no counterpart to this if Christ is kept out of his own sacrifice, as some thoughts would do. He cannot so be kept out if place is given to all the testimony—an express part of which is that as the sum total of the things signified by these patterns, he was ‘purified with’ a better sacrifice than bulls and goats—his own sacrifice. If he was ‘purified’ there was a something to be purified from. What was it? Look at his hereditary death taint, as the son of Adam, through whom death entered the world by sin, and there is no difficulty. Look at the curse of God brought on him in hanging on a tree (Gal. 3:13; Deut. 21:22, 23). We must not get away from the testimony” (page 182).

Thus speaks brother Roberts in his last work, written at the end of a life during which the subject had often been discussed in controversy, and expounded in writings free from the stress of controversy.” (The Letter to the Hebrews, Heb 9, John Carter)

Bro John Carter clearly endorsed bro Robert Roberts comment below from “The Consecration of Aaron and Gis Sons” in “The Law of Moses” because he also quoted from this section in his book “The Letter to the Hebrews”.

“The 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”. (“The Consecration of Aaron and Sons”, The Law of Moses)

This is bro Robert Roberts “constant attitude on the subject in dispute from the time of the Renunciationist controversy” that bro John Carter followed.

First for Himself and Then For the People

The idea that Christ offered for himself first is opposed by the polarised view that the blood of Jesus was not required for himself except as an act of obedience. They reject bro John Thomas’ and bro Robert Roberts’ teaching on Hebrews 7:27 that “that as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented“.

Particular exception is taken to the view that as the anti-typical High Priest Jesus offered first for himself then for us, yet this is the meaning behind bro Robert Roberts phrase “for himself that it might be for us” as he said, “It was “for us” that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself”.

It is important to understand what bro Robert Roberts means by this and what he does not mean by it. Bro Robert Roberts is speaking about the fact that Jesus was the first to be saved by his sacrifice so that we can be saved. He is not saying that Jesus needed to sacrifice for his human nature in order to be cleansed from “sin in the flesh”.

“The statement of Paul in Heb. 7:27 is, that 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.” But there is all the difference between the two cases that there always is between shadow and substance. Christ’s “own sins” were not like the sins of the priests; they were not sins of his own committing. He was without sin, so far as his own actions were concerned. Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people—whether “in Adam” or otherwise, he stood in the position of having these as “his own”, “from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered. Consequently, he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered. He is “Christ the first fruits.” He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the Greek verb ευραμενος (Heb. 9:12) implies. (The “for us” is not in the original.) (It is omitted by the R.V.—Ed., C.) He was brought again from the dead “through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20).

But this 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 himself. “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Yet, though combined, the two relations of the act are visibly separate. Christ was the first saved from death (Heb. 5:9); “afterwards, they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:23). … It was “for us” that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself. … It is “for himself that it might be for them.” (The Christadelphian, March 1875)

Yet those who follow bro Robert Roberts teaching on Hebrews 7:27 as expressed above are accused of believing that Christ offered for his human nature as a separate need. Bro Robert Roberts teaching here is associated with Andrewsim which is manifestly absurd.

Those who follow the view that the blood of Jesus was not required for himself except as an act of obedience, freely acknowledged that their views contradict this teaching of bro Robert Roberts on Hebrews 7:27. They use spurious arguments to oppose it, such as;

1. If Christ is the anti-typical High Priest of Hebrews 7:27 who offered first for himself and then for the people, then it would require two separate offerings of the Lord, one for himself and one for us.

2. When Hebrews 7:27 says ”who needeth not daily … to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people” it means that the offering of the Levitical High Priest was a contrast to Jesus who did not need to make an offering for his own sins because he was sinless.

3. That Jesus could not be a priest on earth, or a priest and an offering at the same time.

These arguments do not represent the historic Central position on the Atonement as upheld by bro Robert Roberts, bro C. C. Walker and bro John Carter. These are arguments that have been used by Shield fellowship writers in The Shield magazine to oppose the Central position expressed in The Christadelphian magazine. Once again, this betrays a leaning towards Clean Flesh by who follow the view that the blood of Jesus was not required for himself except as an act of obedience.

These Clean Flesh arguments were consistently opposed in The Christadelphian magazine and below are some examples of the three arguments above being refuted.

In “For Himself that It Might Be For Us” in 1913, bro C.C. Walker first quotes bro Robert Roberts article with the same title of 1875 and then refutes these Shield Clean Flesh arguments made by bro A. J. Webb and bro R. Irving who were prominent Shield writers who promulgated the Clean Flesh error of bro John Bell.

“The foregoing [“For Himself that It Might Be For Us” The Christadelphian, March 1875)] was written by brother Roberts in answer to a correspondent in The Christadelphian for 1875, p. 139. …

Here are some more examples of this false “philosophy.” “Jesus, not having Adam for his father, he was not involved in Adam’s transgression” “Jesus Christ was not a Son of Adam, but a second Adam made in the nature of the first Adam.” And so the “philosophy” of forty years ago gave Jesus “a free life,” “unforfeited,” and affirmed that he was under no need of sacrificial redemption himself. Thus, there was proposed the

Question.—Was the sacrifice of Christ an offering for himself? And there was given the

Answer.—No.

Now, this same error is cropping up again in various parts of the world, and in The Shield (Sydney), for June, a determined attempt is made to re-introduce it. It is actually and strenuously denied that Heb. 7:27 applies to Jesus at all! And this three times over by three brethren in this one issue. A. J. Webb says (p. 101), “We make the assertion that there is not a passage of Scripture in the whole Bible that says . . . that Jesus offered up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people’s.” R. Irving says (p. 104), “It does not say that ‘Jesus’ offered up sacrifice ‘first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people.’” J. Bell, with accompaniment of raillery, for which he is unfortunately noted, says (p. 105), “No apostle ever said any such thing.”

Now this is a direct denial of Scripture, and, as such, is to be resisted. How the late editor of The Christadelphian viewed the passage is seen from the above extract; and that that view is the only right and Scriptural one should be apparent to honest and impartial discernment. (Quoted from The Christadelphian, March 1875)

Look again, at Heb. 7:27: “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.” Who “offered up himself”? Jesus. Who did this once? Jesus. What is “this” that he did once? “Offered up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s.” But did not the Levitical high priests so? Yes, “daily” in the type. But Jesus is he “who needeth not daily as those high priests” so to do, “for this he did once” in antitype.

Look again: the “who” with which verse 27 opens, relates to the same person as the “who” of the preceding verse (26)—“who is holy, harmless, undefiled.” And this in turn relates to the “he” of the preceding verse (25), “he is able to save to the uttermost;” “he ever liveth.” And this again relates to “this man” of the preceding verse (24), “this man . . . continueth ever.” And this, of course, is none other than “Jesus, ” of verse 22. Who can deny it?

And if you attempt to deny it, you destroy the correspondence between type and antitype, and present us with an antitypical high priest, who himself needed no redemption. Thus, did the Renunciationists of forty years ago. And the utterances now complained of are only too sadly in harmony with some of those of so long ago. Thus, R. Irving says: Shield, p. 104. The Aaronic high priest “had first to cleanse himself from sin. This he did. Then he was a perfect representative of that spotless Lamb of God, who needed not to first cleanse himself by sacrifice from sins which he had committed, for he knew no sin.” He does not perceive that in that “not, ” he has destroyed the correspondence between type and antitype, and denied the Scripture. And that, in the insertion of the words “which he had committed,” he has very wrongly introduced an ambiguity with the effect of be-clouding the issue.

We have never heard of a Christadelphian who contemplated “sins which he (Jesus) had committed,” and therefore such an idea should not be introduced. But that Christ needed to be cleansed from “sins” by sacrifice is here testified in the Word of God. The flesh is “this corruptible,” and from this Christ was delivered “through death” (Heb. 2:14; 5:7–9; 7:27, 28; 9:12–26; 13:20). It is not correct to say: “It was for us he died. It is always ‘for us,’ ‘on our account,’ but never for himself.” Of course, it was “for us,” as we all most thankfully believe. But if that “never for himself” be logically adhered to, then Christ is not “the first-fruits,” “the first-born”; but a being superior to human nature, and needing no redemption. The truth is, as above defined, that the sacrifice of Christ, was “for himself,” that it might be “for us.”—Ed. (“For Himself that it Might Be For Us” C.C. Walker, The Christadelphian, August 1913)

On another occasion in 1910, Bro C.C. Walker refuted Clean Flesh arguments of bro A. D. Strickler from Canada that Christ was not a priest while on the earth and therefore could not offer for himself;

“We are told from Toronto that there are some misapprehensions and misstatements current upon the subjects of sin and sacrifice. It is nothing new; these have always been current and will be to the end. It is now said that some affirm:— …

3.—That Christ did not offer for himself, but only for his people. That he was not a priest while upon earth, and therefore could not offer for himself. …

As to proposition (3) it directly contradicts the New Testament, which says that Jesus could and did offer for himself. In fact it is emphatically declared in Heb. 7:27 that “this he did once, when he offered up himself.” It was, as has been well said, “for himself first, that it might be for us.” Will any affirm that the Lord Jesus was not himself redeemed from death by his own sacrifice? If so let them listen again to Hebrews: “The God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (13:20). How can his “prisoners” be liberated (Zech. 9:11) unless he first be liberated and possess “the keys of hades and of death” (Rev. 1:18). We listen to Christ: “I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself” (Jno. 10:17–18). What is this but offering for himself?

As to the difficulty about priesthood, there is none when the subject is rightly understood. It is explained for us in Heb. 9:14, “Christ through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God.” Truly he was not a priest of the Levitical order (“For if he were on earth he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). But he was a priest of a higher order—“a high priest of good things to come,” who “by (or through) his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11, 12)—“through the veil, that is to say his flesh” (10:20). There is complexity without confusion in Christ. He is Immanuel, God manifested in the flesh; he is the Builder in manifestation (Heb. 3:3, 4) and he is the corner stone of the building; he is the door and the shepherd who enters by the door; he is the sacrifice and the priest who offers the sacrifice, and he is all this and more “through the eternal spirit.” No wonder we find it hard sometimes to understand; but let us bear long with one another, while contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Some further instruction on “The One Great Offering” will be found in Dr. Thomas’ Catechesis, where a few pages are devoted to the subject in the form of question and answer.” (“Sin and Sacrifice” C.C. Walker; The Christadelphian, August 1910)

A few months later in 1910, bro C. C. Walker answered questions from a brother who was bewildered by the cross-current of argument on the matter;

(3).—Writing about 30 years after the death of Christ, the apostle says: “If he were on earth he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests to offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). The old covenant was then decaying and waxing old, and was ready to vanish away (verse 13). The Levitical priesthood is that which was in question. And Christ was of Judah and not of Levi (ch. 7:14). Evidently then he was not a priest on earth of that order. But was he not in some other sense? Yes, for the same writer in the next chapter says that “Christ . . . through the eternal spirit offered himself without spot to God” (ch. 9:14). Perhaps we get as near as possible to an understanding of this divine matter in the words of Dr. Thomas in Catechesis, thus:—Q.—Who was the High Priestly offerer in the crucifixion? A.—The Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14), upon the principle that what one doth by his instruments, he doth himself. Thus Herod, Pilate, the Rulers, Romans and Jews, did whatsoever God’s hand and counsel determined before should be done (Acts 4:27, 28) (“Questions Concerning the Sacrifice of Christ” The Christadelphian, December 1910)

In 1921, bro C. C. Walker countered the clean Flesh teachings of bro A. D. Strickler expressed in his pamphlet Öut of Darkness Into Light”.

“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, [by bro A. D. Strickler] 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 repudiate the doctrines objected to above …” (“Christ the Firstfruits” C.C. Walker; The Christadelphian, July 1921)

Following is a summary of the the articles by bro C. C. Walker above that refuted the Clean Flesh arguments against the historic Central postion in the words of bro Robert Roberts “that as the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary that he should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented“.

1. Clean Flesh Argument

If Christ is the anti-typical High Priest of Hebrews 7:27 who offered first for himself and then for the people, then it would require two separate offerings of the Lord, one for himself and one for us — as though, according to our nature, Christ had a separate need quite apart from our own.

“We make the assertion that there is not a passage of Scripture in the whole Bible that says . . . that Jesus offered up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people’s.” R. Irving says (p. 104), “It does not say that ‘Jesus’ offered up sacrifice ‘first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people.’” (R. Irving & J. Bell)

1. Central Position

“Christ’s “own sins” were not like the sins of the priests; they were not sins of his own committing. He was without sin, so far as his own actions were concerned. Yet as the bearer of the sins of his people—whether “in Adam” or otherwise, he stood in the position of having these as “his own,” from the effects of which he had himself first to be delivered. Consequently, he offered first for himself; he was the first delivered. He is “Christ the first fruits.” He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the Greek verb ευραμενος (Heb. 9:12) implies. (The “for us” is not in the original.) (It is omitted by the R.V.—Ed., C.) He was brought again from the dead “through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20). But this 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 himself. “By one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” Yet, though combined, the two relations of the act are visibly separate. Christ was the first saved from death (Heb. 5:9); “afterwards, they that are Christ’s at his coming” (1 Cor. 15:23).” (Robert Roberts)

“Look again, at Heb. 7:27: “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.” Who “offered up himself”? Jesus. Who did this once? Jesus. What is “this” that he did once? “Offered up sacrifice, first for his own sins and then for the people’s.” But did not the Levitical high priests so? Yes, “daily” in the type. But Jesus is he “who needeth not daily as those high priests” so to do, “for this he did once” in antitype.” (C.C. Walker)

2. Clean Flesh Argument

When Hebrews 7:27 says ”who needeth not daily … to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people” it means that Jesus did not need to make an offering for his own sins because he was sinless.

“Thus, R. Irving says: Shield, p. 104. The Aaronic high priest “had first to cleanse himself from sin. This he did. Then he was a perfect representative of that spotless Lamb of God, who needed not to first cleanse himself by sacrifice from sins which he had committed, for he knew no sin.” (R. Irving quoted by C. C. Walker)

2. Central Position

“He does not perceive that in that “not, ” he has destroyed the correspondence between type and antitype, and denied the Scripture. And that, in the insertion of the words “which he had committed,” he has very wrongly introduced an ambiguity with the effect of be-clouding the issue.” (C.C. Walker)

3. Clean Flesh Argument

“That Christ did not offer for himself, but only for his people. That he was not a priest while upon earth, and therefore could not offer for himself.” (Report from Toronto Ecclesia)

3. Central Position

“It is explained for us in Heb. 9:14, “Christ through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God.” Truly he was not a priest of the Levitical order (“For if he were on earth he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). But he was a priest of a higher order—“a high priest of good things to come,” who “by (or through) his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11, 12)—“through the veil, that is to say his flesh” (10:20).” (C.C. Walker)

“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.” (C.C. Walker)

As our representative, Christ was included in the operation of his sacrifice and not disconnected from it. It was operative on him first by his faith, so that it could be operative on us through our faith in his blood. If the shedding of his blood was not required for himself except as a matter of obedience, he was not included in his sacrifice but was saved aside from it and was disconnected from its operation. How could he therefore be our representative? As bro Robert Roberts explains in “The Law of Moses”.

“The type is before us; the antitype is in Christ. He is the altar, the book of the law, and the other things that come after. The sprinkling of the typical blood on both by Moses prefigured the operation of divine love and wisdom in Christ’s own sacrifice. It was a sacrifice operative on himself first of all: for he is the beginning of the new creation, the firstfruits of the new harvest, the foundation of the new temple. He was the nucleus of a new and healthy life developed among men, for the healing of all who should become incorporate with it. As such, it was needful that he should himself be the subject of the process and the reaper of the results. Hence the testimony that “the God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb. 13:20), and that by his own blood, entering into the holy place, he obtained (middle, or self-subjective, state of the verb) eternal redemption (” for us” is interpolated) (9:12). The Father saved him from death for his obedience unto death (Heb. 5:7–9; Phil. 2:8–9; Rom. 5:19).

The common view which disconnects Christ from the operation of his own sacrifice would have required that Moses should have left the altar and the book of the law unsprinkled. These were parts of what Paul terms “the patterns of things in the heavens”, concerning which he remarks that it was necessary they should be purified with the sacrifices ordained. The application of this to Christ as the antitype he makes instantly; “but (it was necessary that) the heavenly things themselves (should be purified) with better sacrifices than these” (Heb. 9:23). The phrase “the heavenly things” is an expression covering all the high, holy and exalted things of which the Mosaic pattern was but a foreshadowing. They are all comprehended in Christ, who is the nucleus from which all will be developed, the foundation on which all will be built. The statement is therefore a declaration that it was necessary that Christ should first of all be purified with better sacrifices than the Mosaic: “Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place”; “not into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (Heb. 9:12, 23–24).” (“The Covenant at Sinai”, The Law of Moses)

Jesus was specifically made by God for this purpose as a mortal man suffering the effects of sin, but because he did no sin, God was able to deliver him from the effects of sin and open a way of salvation for us on the basis of faith in his blood. Separating Christ from this redemptive work he was sent to do only leads to error and causes confusion and strife. Both of these polarised views destroy the simple beauty of the Atonement.

The Lamb of God Which Taketh Away the Sin of the World

Clearly our mortal human nature does not require sacrificial cleansing from “sin in the flesh”, but our mortality with its tendency to sin from our lusts within are the effects of sin that we inherit. Therefore, the sacrifice of Christ that “takes away sin” is not for the forgiveness of sins only but for taking away the effects of sin also. Jesus did no sin but he suffered from the effects of sin, and so as our representative he also was saved through his blood to be delivered from those effects.

One polarised view errs by separating forgiveness (moral) from immortalisation (physical) and teaches that the removal of the effects of sin is an automatic result of forgiveness but not in any way related to the shedding of Christ’s blood. The other polarised view errs by linking the removal of physical “sin in the flesh” by the shedding of Christ’s blood equally with moral sins.

The removal of moral sin and the physical effects of sin we inherit go hand in hand and cannot be separated, but the physical effects of sin are only removed at the judgment seat on the basis of our moral sins being removed by forgiveness and the transformation of our minds now. Sin and all its effects are removed by God through our faith in the righteousness of God that the shedding of Christ’s blood demonstrated, and this was true for the Lord himself who obtained eternal redemption for us by obtaining it for himself first.

Look at what bro C. C. Walker says in “The Atonement”.

The Taking Away of Sin

“To “take away sin” is to heal disease, and ultimately to “abolish death”—to take away the effects of sin. Obviously actions cannot be recalled, but the effects thereof can be modified or obliterated. …

In the cases cited it is obvious that the “taking away of sin” is the taking away of the effect in greater or less degree. The climax is the abolition of death itself, as Paul said to Timothy: “God hath saved us . . . according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began; but is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel” (2 Tim. 1:8–10). And ultimately, through the purpose and grace of God in “the Lamb,” “there shall be no more death . . . for the former things are passed away” (Rev. 21:4). Obviously Jesus Christ has “abolished death” as yet only in himself: “For in that he died, he died unto Sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God” (Rom. 6:10). (“The Atonement”, C. C. Walker)

Bro John Carter also makes the same point in “The Name of Salvation”.

“The purpose of redemption in and through a Son of God is basic to Old Testament revelation. Only through God acting can salvation come, for man cannot realize it by his own efforts. When man sinned God did not arbitrarily forgive the sin. Sin is too radical, too far reaching in its effects, to be put aside easily. To forgive, for God, involved not only a resumption of relationship sundered by sin, but the removal also of the effects of sin. God’s forgiveness, in other words, embraces the removal of the evil that has come by sin. Jesus illustrated this when he healed a man. The onlookers were expecting Jesus to say “Be healed”, whereas he said to their surprise and to the consternation of some who heard, “Thy sins be forgiven thee”. But they were not idle words, and to show that the Son of man had power to forgive sins, he said to the palsied man, “Take up thy bed and walk”. Forgiveness involves that God will remove the evil in the flesh that sin has caused.” (The Christadelphian, November 1958)

He made the same point in “Thoughts on Forgiveness”.

“While the miracle demonstrates that the forgiveness of sins involves the removal of the effects of sin—including both sickness and death—it would be a mistake to conclude that when a man is justified by faith he at once finds the consequences of sin also removed.

 … The grace of God is creative—the new creature is a forgiven man who seeks to walk worthy of God. And when the new creation is perfected, without spot or wrinkle or any such things, the effects of sin will all have been swallowed up in victory—the victory of the Lamb slain.” (The Christadelphian, February 1960)

Jesus is the lamb of God that “taketh away the sin of the world” in his sacriifce, and this also encompasses the effects of sin as well as the forgivenss of sins. Jesus did no sin, but he suffered from the effects of sin, and so as our representative he also was saved through his blood to be delivered from those effects.

Bro Robert Roberts puts this very succinctly in “The Devil Destroyed by Christ in His Death”. Two extracts of it are quoted by bro John Carter in his 1958 article “Reference to Pioneer Writings” which is included in the Australian Unity Book p 72.

“Jesus was not a sinner in any sense, when by sinner is meant transgressor. He was a sufferer from the effects of sin in all the items of weakness, labour, pain, sorrow, death; and in this sense (as a partaker with us of the effects of sin) has been described as a constitutional sinner, or one subject to a sin-constitution of things. But as this phrase gives occasion to disingenuous cavil, it is well to discard the phrase and look at the meaning, which has been stated. As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first, not for sins of his own committing, but for deliverance from the sin of Adam from which he suffered in common with his brethren, and from the sins of his brethren which were laid on him. To deny that he suffered from the effect of sin, is to deny that he was of our race and nature, and (to deny) all the testimony in the Psalms and elsewhere concerning his sufferings in the days of his flesh. Jesus Christ was “the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. 1:1), as well as the son of God, and was made in all points like his brethren, partaking of their flesh and blood for the express purpose of redeeming it in himself from the dominion of sin and death, and inviting them to build on the new foundation thus laid.—(Heb. 2:11–17.) …

In the moral sense, that is, as regards character, Jesus knew no sin, and was absolutely separate from sinners; but in the physical sense, he was not separate from sinners, for “he was made in the likeness of sinful flesh.”—(Rom. 8:3.) He was “made sin” for us who knew no such thing in his character.—(2 Cor. 5:21.) He was made in all things like his brethren (Heb. 2:17), tempted like them (Heb. 4:15), and possessed their very flesh and blood.—(Heb. 2:14.) He was of the seed of David according to the flesh.—(Rom. 1:3.) Therefore he was not “separate” from them physically, but their bone, and their flesh, and their blood—Son of Man as well as Son of God.—(John 5:27.) This being so, he was a sufferer from the hereditary effects of sin; for those effects are physical effects. 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 first fruits”) 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 judgment seat permit. This we do in baptism, in which we are made partakers of his death, as well as his resurrection.” (“The Devil Destroyed by Christ in His Death” The Christadelphian, August 1875)

The simple balanced literal truth of the Atonement without mystifying technical elaborations “is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death”. (“The Meaning of Sacrifice” The Christadelphian, September 1924)