The Christadelphian, December 1910, C.C. Walker

“Honouring the Son”

We honour the Son by hearing his word and believing in the Father who sent him. This is his own declaration in the passage above referred to. The testimony of God concerning Christ, is that he is Son of God and Son of Man, and the latter aspect “Son of Man” is that which Jesus himself is emphasising in the passage quoted. Certain well-meaning but misguided persons think they “honour the Son” by exalting him to a higher plane than humanity as concerning his nature. That is to say, they are grieved to hear Christ associated with “sin” in any sense as to nature. Thus a correspondent (C. J. C.), explaining why he cannot join us in fellowship speaks as follows:—

“In The Christadelphian for August, 1907, p. 363, in the Answers to Correspondents columns, someone had said, among other things, that ‘sin did not exist in Christ.’ John says, ‘In him is no sin, ’ and I humbly agree with him. Well, the editor writes in opposition to this, supporting his contention by reference to the brazen serpent as a type of the Saviour. He says, ‘We are all agreed that there was nothing of the serpent about the character of the Son of Man.’ Perhaps what he means here is right enough, it is nevertheless rather unfortunate for this remark that the Lord should have urged the apostles to be ‘wise as serpents’ (Matt. 10:16), as it is only reasonable to assume that he himself exhibited the same wisdom. If so, it is not correct to say ‘there was nothing of the serpent about the character of the Son of Man.’ But let that pass; what follows is more serious. Failing to apply the serpent element to the mentality, he applies it to the flesh, ‘sinful flesh’ of the Lamb of God. Now it is unfortunate for this also that the New Testament does not say that Jesus came in ‘sinful flesh,’ but in a likeness of it. There is a depth here not always perceived. It would have been easier to write that Jesus came in sinful flesh if that had been Paul’s meaning in Rom. 8. But he expressly guards himself against saying that. It was in a ‘likeness of, ’ not the thing itself but something like it . . . .”

Further, our correspondent continues:—

“In The Christadelphian for Oct., 1907, p. 459, it says, “As the antitypical high priest it was necessary that he (Jesus) should offer for himself as well as for those whom he represented,’ and the evidence that he must offer for himself is thus given:—‘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.’ Now here is an unqualified implication on the part of the magazine, that the Holy One of God offered for ‘his own sins’! Look at it. It is averred that it was necessary to offer for himself because the Mosaic high priest offered for himself, that is, ‘for his own sins.’ It is quite idle to say he offered for himself, and to quote as proof the offering of the old high priest for his own sins, unless it is believed that Jesus offered for his own sins. If he (Jesus) did not offer for his own sins, why quote as proof a text which says the old high priest did? There is, as it seems to me, inconsistency, or incongruity, or irreverence, or all three.” . . .

Continuing on this line, C. J. C. adds:—

“It used to be taught by Brother Roberts, and rightly as I understand, that, apart from his work as the Sacrificial Redeemer of the race, Jesus, viewed as a perfect man, might have died a natural death, and then, on account of his perfect righteousness, have been raised to everlasting life, and that the whole transaction would have been perfectly just and consistent. This idea (which I understand has been eliminated from recent editions of brother Roberts’ pamphlets) is stoutly opposed in the magazine (October, 1907, p. 478). The writer there says, ‘We do not and dare not believe that a natural death would have been sufficient for our Elder Brother and Pattern in any sense, or under any conditions . . . such language is of Ashdod.’ And why would it not have been sufficient, pray? Apart from the sacrificial necessity on account of the sins of others, what had He done to render necessary anything more than the very briefest submission to the death sentence of Eden? Can I not here see the effect of the implied and involved sinfulness of the spotless Son (which is taught in the magazine) filtering down through its readers, and being reflected in their articles? A footnote from the pen at head quarters ought to have corrected so gross an innuendo.”

“An error as appalling, only in the opposite direction, is I think in the magazine for February, 1907, p. 62, where the writer (F.G.J.) says, ‘The Levitical sacrifices were effectual to the forgiveness of sins’; and this in spite of Heb. 10:4, which says, ‘It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,’ and verse 11. It is almost a question which is the greater crime: to say the blessed Saviour had, in some way, ‘his own sins,’ for which he must offer, or to say that he must share the honour of effectually taking away sins with the Levitical sacrifices—bulls, goats, calves, and so forth.”

These, says our correspondent, are some of the reasons why he can have nothing to do with us in fellowship.

Some Remarks in Reply

Objections such as are recorded above are generally met with from those who are quite unenlightened concerning the truth. In such a case we might have hope of convincing the objector. But we cannot feel much hope in the case of one who has known the truth for many years, and has had such ample opportunity of knowing the doctrines of those he criticises. He is perfectly well aware that The Christadelphian has never said or hinted that the Lord Jesus was a sinner! When, therefore, we are told that we “write in opposition to” the apostolic statement that “In him was no sin,” we can only pass it over with the reflection that the objector is for the time being the slave of words to the confusion of ideas, and therefore cannot rightly harmonize John with Paul when the latter says (2 Cor. 5:21), “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” The meaning is, that Jesus, though partaking of sinful flesh, was in character sinless.

Again, objection concerning “nothing of the serpent about the character of the Son of Man” is neat enough as a matter of words; but C.J.C. knows very well (or ought to know) that we were talking not of “wisdom” but of wickedness. When the Lord Jesus denounced the apostate Jews as “serpents” he referred to wickedness and not “wisdom,” and even hypercriticism could scarcely misinterpret him. As concerning nature, he was the same as they, but very different in character.

As to “sinful flesh” and “the likeness of sinful flesh,” they are the same thing. On this point Brother Roberts speaks as follows in The Blood of Christ, written in 1895, only two or three years before his death:—

Sin in the Flesh

Some experience distress at the association of Jesus with sinful flesh in any sense. They seek relief in the expression of Rom. 8., that God sent His own Son “in the likeness of sinful flesh.” Let us consider this. What about this likeness? Moses informs us (Gen. 5:3) that Adam begat a son in his own image and likeness. You would not say the word “likeness” means that Seth was, in any wise, different from Adam. There is the word “image.” Suppose the word “image” had been used in this remark of Paul’s: “sent His Son in the image of the earthly nature.” We should then have had this argument—“Ah, you see it is only the image; it is not the nature itself.” Whereas, Paul says concerning ourselves in 1 Cor. 15:49: “We have borne the image of the earthy, and shall also bear the image of the heavenly.” Shall we say we have not borne the earthy? Do not we bear the earthy? Yes. Therefore in apostolic language “earthy” and “the image of the earthy” mean the same thing. Upon the same principle, sinful flesh and the likeness of sinful flesh mean the same thing. And we shall find that the same they are.

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 (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.

There are those who, without intending it, place themselves in antagonism to the testimony in affirming that, while Jesus came in the flesh, it was not in flesh “sinful in its tendency as ours.” The testimony is that he was “tempted in all points” as ourselves, which could not have been the case in the absence of the susceptibilities which our correspondent denies. The very essence of temptation is susceptibility to wrong suggestion. The victory lies in the opposing considerations brought to bear. The truth of the matter does not depend upon the word “likeness” or any other single term, but upon the combination of statements made—which are all in language plain enough to be free from obscurity. At the same time, it has to be pointed out that the word “likeness” in the Greek has the force of resemblance so complete as to be sameness. This is illustrated in the statement that Jesus was made in “the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7). The extent of the likeness is defined as extending to “all points” and “all things” (Paul’s words—Heb 2:17: 4:15).

So again, as concerning Christ offering for himself. The article over which our correspondent holds up his hands in horror is by brother Roberts (The Christadelphian, October, 1907, p. 459), and we endorse it in toto. He knows very well that the deceased did not teach that the Lord Jesus was a sinner. Nor does the apostle when he says of Jesus (Heb. 7:27), “This he did once” that is “offer . . . first for his own sins.” Words are but signs for ideas; and there can never be what we might call mathematical precision of correspondence between the types and shadows of the law and the substance in Christ. All the priests under the law were sinners in the sense of being transgressors of the law. Christ was not so. Yet “this he did once.” What is meant is explained in a later part of the same wonderful expository epistle, namely, in ch. 13:20, “The God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus . . . through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” See also the scriptures quoted in section 11 of the article in question (The Christadelphian, 1907, p. 459). Our correspondent does not seem to realise that he is objecting to the words of inspiration itself. God required the Lord Jesus to lay down his life in sacrifice, and through that “one offering” he was himself redeemed from death as “the firstfruits.”

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.

Akin to this is the comparison made by some, of the Lord Jesus with Adam before the fall. There is no true comparison. Jesus was “Son of Man,” which Adam was not. The “Renunciationists” of 1873 lost themselves over this false comparison, and invented the dogma of a “free life” for Christ, when all the time he was born to die, that God, in HIs sacrifice, might “condemn sin in the flesh.”

We earnestly recommend the study of the sacrifice of Christ in the scriptures with the help of The Blood of Christ, The Slain Lamb, and the expositions in Elpis Israel and Eureka. We do not expect that controversy will ever cease upon this great matter until Christ himself returns from heaven; we must all contribute our part, with his judgment seat in view.

As to C.J.C.’s strictures upon F.G.J.’s reply to his critic in The Christadelphian, 1907, p. 62, we marvel that he has not more discernment and fairness. Here is the whole section as it there appeared:—

67. Were the Levitical sacrifices effectual to the forgiveness of sins, as per Lev. 6. and 7.? Or were they wholly inoperative and useless, as per Heb. 10:1 to 4, and verse 11?

The Levitical sacrifices were effectual to the forgiveness of sins when offered according to the divine requirements; and no where in the Bible are we told that such were “wholly inoperative and useless.” Read your verses from Heb. again, and compare with Rom. 8:3. You will then see why the Levitical sacrifices did not accomplish what was accomplished by the “Son of God” when he was “led as a lamb to the slaughter.”

F. G. J.’s answer is perfectly scriptural. Under the law the man’s sins were forgiven so far: “It shall be forgiven him.” But his sins were not “taken away” in the sense of death (which is the wages of sin) being taken away. This is what is spoken in the epistle to the Hebrews. And it is explained that Jesus is “the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they which have been called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (9:15). God forgave them then, but let them die. He will forgive them unto eternal life when Christ comes. David is an illustration. Surely our correspondent does not seriously mean to describe this belief as a “crime.” When we speak of “our correspondent,” however, we are not strictly in order. The letter under review was written to a brother in our fellowship, who passed it on for a reply. The writer headed his communication with the reference to “honouring the Son,” and concluded it with a similar reference. Hence our title. Hence also these remarks, for the length of which perhaps some apology is needed. But possibly some may be helped and enlightened by what has been said.—Ed.