The Christadelphian August 1913, C.C. Walker

“For Himself That It Might Be For Us”

"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). 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? The matter might be simplified by supposing the case were leprosy instead of sin, and the cure to be passing through fire instead of death; but that the fire should only possess the power of cure where the disease existed without the virus of the disease, and that in all other cases the effect of the fire should be to destroy. Let the leprosy be death in the constitution, brought about by sin, and the virus, actual sin itself. By this illustration, all mankind are under the power of leprosy, which cannot be cured by the fire, owing to the presence of the combustible virus, which will catch fire and destroy the patient. If only one could be found free from the virus, he could go through the fire and save the rest: but he cannot be found. God interposes and produces such an one among them, one in whom the leprosy exists without the virus, that the rest may be cured by joining hands with him after he has gone through the fire. He goes through the fire “for them;” but is it not obvious that he goes through it for himself in the first instance? for if he is not delivered from the leprosy first, how will his going through the fire avail them? 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 foregoing was written by brother Roberts in answer to a correspondent in The Christadelphian for 1875, p. 139. At that time there had been much controversy concerning The Sacrifice of Christ, and some had introduced old errors that in effect denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh. The doctrine became known some forty years ago by the term, Renunciationism, because the promulgators printed and published a document Renouncing their previous views in favour of their supposed new discovery.

This new discovery was really only a bit of old “philosophy and vain deceit,” which speedily gave the lie to Christ himself. Thus, one propounded a

Question.—What is meant by Adam’s posterity? And he supplied the

Answer.—Every human being who has been born of two human parents.

Therefore, in the writer’s judgment, Jesus was not of Adam’s posterity! Yet Jesus himself is at pains to emphasise the fact that he is “the Son of Man.”

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. 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.