The Christadelphian December 1898, Islip Collyer

As reprinted by John Carter in The Christadelphian January 1957

“Pushing Enquiry Too Far”

Bro. I. Collyer writes in deprecation of “the tendency on the part of some to push enquiries too far”. He says, “Not content with grasping the purpose of God as it is, they want to understand what it might have been if certain circumstances had been different. Then again they often mystify a simple matter by drawing a distinction between the will of God and the law of God, just as if the problem of redemption involved the evasion of divine law. As a matter of fact any law God may impose is the expression of His will for the time it is given, and since ‘known unto God are all His works from the beginning of the world’, His laws are given with a full knowledge of all their effects.

"It is a complete mistake to suppose that God’s law involved His taking a course of action opposed to His will. It is a complete mistake to talk of ‘vindicating the justice of God in slaying His Son’ by supposing that all men were subject to such a penalty for the sin of Adam. If God’s justice required any vindication for subjecting His Son to death, it would equally require vindication for imposing a law which involved such a sacrifice. I believe that these two errors lie at the root of most of the confusion which has arisen, and I fear that in the realm of conjecture as to what God might have done under different circumstances to those which exist, brethren have sometimes lost themselves and created needless difficulty.

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.

In the agitation of a few years ago, I tried to make this point clear by a quotation from Elpis Israel , where, in laying down the divine principles concerning sacrifice, the Doctor says, ‘No other reason can be given for them than that God wills them’. Our opponent replied, ‘That is perfectly true, but it is possible to penetrate further. Why did God will it? Because man had transgressed His law’. We might answer to that, ‘True again; but who had transgressed His law? Certainly not Jesus; so how does that affect his case?’ Here we have these principles admitted. Sacrifice is necessary simply because God wills it. God wills it because men have transgressed God’s law. The question propounded is, if the only one to be saved was Jesus who never transgressed, would God still have willed that sacrifice should be required? I confess I do not know. Do you, brother Roberts? Does anyone? And if so, how do they get their information? But it may be urged that sacrifice was necessary for the cleansing of sin-nature, that almost all things are by the law purged with blood, that the holiest of all could not be entered without a perfect sacrifice and that therefore Jesus must have died. But then again if Jesus only was to be saved would the Mosaic law have been given? Would other men have been placed under law at all? Would they have ever been created?

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.

I suggest a few questions and answers on this matter which go quite far enough, and which are so well supported by Scripture that no one ought to have any difficulty in accepting them:

Q. What was the effect of Adam’s sin on his descendants ?

A. It involved them in his condemnation and introduced into human nature a law of hereditary mortality.

Q. Can men obtain their own deliverance from this law ?

A. No. “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, therefore justification can only come by the favour of God “through the redemption that is in Christ”.

Q. Why was Christ’s sacrifice necessary ?

A. God willed it for the upholding of His righteousness because man had transgressed His law.

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”.

Q. Why then was his death of greater efficacy than that of any other man ?

A. Because his perfect righteousness fitted him to be raised to life again, while others when they die, simply obtain the due wage for their sins.

Q. Was it unjust for God to make a law which involved a perfectly righteous man being put to death ?

A. Not at all, “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us”, and so Christ as the “Captain of our salvation” was “made perfect through suffering”.

Q. Would Christ have had to die if he alone was to be saved ?

A. I do not know. If the purpose of God had been different, His will concerning sacrifice might have been different also. It seems, however, a general rule that none can be perfected without trial and suffering of some kind.

I cannot help thinking that if the questions were cleared of speculation in this way, brethren would understand each other better; and my experience leads me to conclude—although it may seem an unkind suggestion—that they would understand their own position better too.

I know you do not wish to raise old controversies again, and the decision is doubtless wise, but I think that a little assistance might be given in this way; for the questions raised in those disputes still revolve in many minds.”

The quotation from Elpis Israel occurs at the end of Chapter V under “Summary of Principles”. Bro. C. C. Walker added this footnote in Elpis Israel :

“With reference to paragraph 13 above, the fact that God wills the elementary doctrinal principles of religion is all sufficient, but here and there allusions in the Scriptures suggest reasons why He so wills them. For example, when Nadab and Abihu set aside His will and offered strange fire He struck them dead, and Moses recognized the reason: ‘This is that the Lord spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified’ ( Lev. 11 : 3 ). Moses himself afterwards died on Mount Nebo (as Aaron had previously died on Mount Hor) without entering the promised land, and God said it was ‘because ye sanctified me not in the midst of the children of Israel’ ( Deut. 32 : 51 ). The Lord’s prayer, in its opening words, places the same principle in the forefront: ‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.’ ‘If I be a father, where is mine honour?’ said God to apostate Israel ( Mal. 1 : 6 ). ‘I am a great King, saith the Lord of Hosts, and my Name is dreadful among the heathen’ (verse 14 ). God set forth Jesus as a Mercy seat, not only for man’s sake, but that ‘He might be just’, and ‘boasting’ on man’s part might be ‘excluded’ ( Rom. 3 : 4 , 25–27 ). He committed the treasure of the truth to ‘earthen vessels’, that ‘the excellency of the power might be of God’ and not of man ( 2 Cor. 4 : 7 ). Thus He ‘chose the base things of the world’ . . . ‘that no flesh should glory in his presence’ ( 1 Cor. 1 : 29 ). These and similar scriptures convey the idea that the reasons of God’s appointments in His principles of religion are that, in the first place, He may be ‘justified’, ‘honoured’, ‘sanctified’, and ‘hallowed’; and next, that man, taking this truly reasonable, humble, and obedient attitude, may be saved from death and live for ever. No one more strenuously upholds this doctrine than Dr. Thomas."