For whom Christ died (CMPA)
"FOR God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life" (John 3:16). "And truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his
Son Jesus Christ... and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all
sin" (1Jo 1:3-7). (Scriptural quotations in the text are either AV or
RV.)
Why then should it be that of all things that have divided
brethren over the years, the most deep-seated and long-lived controversies have
centred upon the nature of the act which revealed the love of God, the grace of
our Lord Jesus Christ and the true meaning of fellowship? The answer is twofold.
First, brethren have in all sincerity, and rightly, insisted that seriously
inadequate ideas about the Atonement can be no proper basis for a fellowship
built upon "our common salvation". Although John speaks of walking in light or
darkness as the test of fellowship which God applies, the darkness of the
understanding does also alienate from the life of God. Secondly, however,
understanding has often been clouded by the use of non-scriptural phrases, or
even words of scripture abstracted from a context, to be bandied about in
discussion. The truth is that slogans are a counterfeit coinage in the exchange
of Scriptural ideas. So phrases like "clean flesh", "free life", "defiled
Christ", and even the hyphenated phrase "sin-in-the-flesh", carrying their own
emotional overtones, not to mention shades of meaning, for different people who
use them, have degraded the discussion of a majestic theme into a wrangle and
barred the way to a common understanding of Scriptural truth.
One thing is certain. If it pleased God in His love to give
His Son to die for us, it was to inspire us to love in our turn: for the Father,
and the Son, and one another. We shall not have begun to understand the mystery
of the death of Christ, no matter how exact our knowledge of the facts, if what
we know leaves us with any will to bite and devour one another. The most
elementary first principles of the meaning of the death of our Lord will have
passed us by if in any way our acquaintance with it allows us to breathe out
threatenings and slaughter against one another, or unsubmissively to go about to
establish our own righteousness. The sufferings of Christ teach us not only
truth, but a frame of mind: for they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh,
with its affections and lusts. Paul is writing in the shadow of the cross when
he writes: "Use not your freedom for an occasion to the flesh, but through love
be servants one to another."
(John 3:16 ; Rom 5:8 ; 1Jo 4 :11; Phi 2:5; Gal 5:13-26; Rom
10:3; Acts 9:1.)
Another thing is no less certain. If God could foreshadow the
offering of His Son in terms of many different sacrifices, and prefigure his
work by means of an elaborate Tabernacle, and of priests in robes of intricate
design, then we shall not be able to express the work he did in a set phrase or
two of our own making, and suppose that we have comprehended it all. If the New
Testament can speak of the death of Christ in relation to us as though it were
the ransoming of slaves, or the crucifixion and burial of his friends as well as
himself, or being washed clean by sprinkling of his blood, or the making and
sealing of a covenant, and in other ways yet, any simple statements we might
make on this subject, even when they are true and helpful, must inevitably leave
much unsaid. It follows from this that any knowledge we have at any time on this
subject should continue to grow as our experience, both of life and of the Word
of God, becomes deeper and richer, and new needs call forth new
understanding.
(Much of Exo-Num, and the summaries in Heb 1-10; Mat 20:28;
Rom 6:1-11; Col 2: 11-l5; Heb 9:11-14; 12:24; 9:20; Col 1:24.)
A third thing is as sure. The cross of Christ will not be so
hard to receive that only the learned in the Law can profit from it. There is
enough in its scope to occupy all our hearts and minds for all our life: there
is meaning enough in a simple and faithful acceptance of its call to give us
grace and peace from that point on, and teach us love and forbearance with one
another. No words of ours, however true, will exhaust the riches of a subject so
vast:
"O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the
knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing
out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?"
(Rom 11:33-34).
OUR NEED AND HELPLESSNESS
We must start at this point, for otherwise we shall have no
conception of what redemption means. We shall have no real understanding of what
it is from which we seek deliverance. Even worse, we might be looking for the
wrong thing: forgiveness without strings and without real repentance, or even a
sort of legal bargain which will grant us righteousness without real effort or
response from us.
The Bible is very plain. Of the nature of Adam after he fell
there is no doubt. In the day that he sinned he was condemned to death. From
that moment he was as good as dead. "By one man sin entered into the world and
death by sin." All of us, save One, actually do sin and all, without any
exception at all, are faced with the urge to do so, which is part and parcel of
our fallen nature.
History shows it: the Fall of Adam was followed by the murder
of Abel, and then by the multiplication of wickedness which arose from the
indulgence of "every imagination of the thought of man's heart".
(Gen 3; Rom 5:12; 3:23; Heb 4:15; Gen 4; 6:5.)
Precept shows it too: the last quotation was almost a
statement of what man's heart is like, and immediately following the Flood God
pronounces that "the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth", a very
plain statement of where sin springs from, stating equally plainly that we are
not only tempted to sin from without: the temptation is there, powerful and
urgent within. As James puts it, "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of
his own lusts, and enticed." The same root source of all our sinning is found in
Jeremiah's statement, "The heart of man is deceitful above all things, and it is
desperately sick." Paul makes the terrible statement that God gave hardened
sinners over "in the lust of their own hearts" to all the evils to which they
were abandoned. His picture of himself as of a man striving (so long as he was
without Christ) helplessly against sin that dwelleth in him, unable to resist
that which his enlightened conscience taught him to hate, is that of a man whose
own desires war in his members against the will of God (like "your lusts that
war in your members" of James). It leads him to the conclusion that good laws
can never make a man good, because they are "weak through the flesh". And to
Paul the flesh is a term which denotes the natural man, whose natural works he
lists as "fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities,
strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, heresies, envyings,
drunkenness, revellings, and such like" (that expressive etcetera at the end
revealing that there is no limit to the things of which the natural man is
capable, and to which he is by nature disposed).
(Gen 8:21; Jam 1:14; Jer 17:9; Rom 1:24, and throughout Rom
1-3; 7:1-24; 8:3; Jam 4:1; Gal 5:19-21.)
We need only the Lord Jesus' own confirmation of our position.
And this he provides when he rejects the idea that defilement comes from
outside, and tells us quite plainly whence come all our promptings to
evil:
"That which proceedeth out of the man, that defileth the man.
For from within, out of the heart of men, evil thoughts proceed, fornication,
thefts, murders, adulteries, coveting, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an
evil eye, railing, pride, foolishness: all these evil things proceed from
within, and defile the man" (Mark 7:1-23).
So there we have our human nature: through no fault of our own
each one of us inherits desire contrary to the will of God. This is the "law of
sin in our members". When we indulge it we actually commit sin. Our nature can
only be like that of Adam after the Fall; nor can it be said that terms like
"clean" or "undefiled" are in accord with the Scripture teaching set out above.
So long as this nature is with us we are unfit for the Kingdom of God. That is
why a man needs to be born again, and why the Lord Jesus Christ died and rose
again to make this possible.
(John 3:3-5; Gal 5: 21; 1Co 6:10.)
LIKE UNTO HIS BRETHREN
Of course, the Lord Jesus Christ was born Son of God, as well
as Son of man. And a very important thing it is that God was his Father. Yet it
is vital to establish that the Lord's bodily nature was like our own,
temptations and all. It is very readily done: he was made of a woman made under
the Law; he was made in the likeness of men; because the children whom he came
to redeem are of flesh and blood, he also himself in like manner partook of the
same, he was made in all points like his brethren; he was sent in the likeness
of sinful flesh. No distinction is ever made between the fleshly nature of the
Lord and that of the rest of men: and therefore, having shown what this heritage
implies in the way of temptation for us, we have already shown it for the Lord
too. Those same desires which are strong in us, and which we fail to resist,
were strong in him also.
(Gal 4:4; Phi 2:7-8; Heb 2:14; 2:17; Rom 8:3.)
So, notwithstanding his divine sonship, he learned obedience
by the things that he suffered. He was tempted in all points like ourselves. It
was with strong crying and tears that he endured his trials. No matter by what
means they came to him in the wilderness, his temptations, the desire for food,
for popularity and for power, were keenly felt in his heart and had to be
rejected. When meditating entirely within himself he could contemplate the
possibility of seeking escape from his hour rather than glorifying the name of
God. He knew the attractiveness of deliverance from his foes with the help of
twelve legions of angels, and needed to put aside the thought. Being a man he
needed the conscious and continuous discipline of emptying himself, taking on
himself the form of a servant, becoming and remaining obedient, even unto the
death of the cross. His temptations were so like our own that, as our High
Priest, he draws constantly upon the recollection of his own trials as he
resisted temptation, and so can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities,
able to succour them that are tempted because he suffered under temptation
himself.
(Heb 5:8; 4:15; 2:18; Mat 4:1-11; John 12:27; Phi
2:5-8.)
Even though he did no sin, and all his words and deeds were
pure from his youth up, he was not prepared to allow men to call him good, as
with the inherent and unassailable goodness which belongs to God. When he used
the word we translate "perfect" about himself, it was only of what he would
become as a result of his death and resurrection. When the Letter to the Hebrews
uses the same word three times about him, it is again what he had achieved by
his death. God made him perfect by suffering; being made perfect he became the
Author of eternal salvation; the word of God's promise appoints the Son as
priest, perfected for evermore. The Bible recognizes throughout the weakness of
the Son of God in the days of his flesh, and places in his reliance upon the
Word of God and upon the strength he sought from Him the credit for his victory:
''The Lord is at my right hand, therefore I shall not be moved."
(Mark 10:17-18; Luke 13:32; Heb 2:10; 5:9; 7:28; Psa
16:8.)
When Paul speaks of Jesus as coming "in the likeness of sinful
flesh" (or flesh of sin), or "in the likeness of men", he cannot be understood
as meaning that Jesus' make-up resembled these things, but was in reality
different. In both cases he clearly means that, though our human nature left to
itself had failed to overcome sin, when God sent His own Son born in the same
human nature the victory was achieved. That the Lord's fleshly nature was that
of Adam after he fell, is seen in the fact that he offered up prayers "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 he obedience by the
things which he suffered." There is no need to rush to the Lord's defence as
though there were any discredit to him in having been born with a nature prone
to sin. This was his lot, which he accepted and overcame. Far greater was the
triumph of battling against sin in a body where a fallen nature was entrenched,
than would have been the case had he commenced in innocence with a human nature
unspoiled by heritage from Adam. And far greater was his brotherhood in
affliction, and now in mediation, with his brethren, when we acknowledge that he
conquered that very nature, with all its urge to turn away from God, which we
know in our own consciences so well. There is real meaning in the words "to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself" when this is acknowledged; and in the
fullest possible sense he destroyed the devil through death on the cross when,
after the pattern of the serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness, he
finally put away the power of sin from himself, and became the priest who can
lead us in ultimate victory over the same power.
(Rom 8:3; Phi 2:7; Heb 5:7-8; 9:26; John 3:14; Num
21:9.)
Yet though the Lord had our nature, to brandish when speaking
of him the words "defiled", "cursed", or "condemned", is both unseemly and
beyond the warrant of Scripture. No defiled word or deed ever escaped him, and
it were far better to concentrate on his behaviour ("who did no sin, neither was
guile found in his mouth"), in spite of the limitations which he shared with us
all. And though it is true that fleshly nature is unfitted for immortality or
for eternal fellowship with God, it is foolish to speak as though the beloved
Son was estranged from his Father by his nature. All the evidence of his life,
his prayers, his Father's commendation (at baptism, transfiguration and close to
the time of the cross) is that he and his Father shared the closest communion,
save for the briefest necessary moment on the cross itself. During his mortal
life the Son was loved and cherished by his Father. No doubt it would have been
otherwise had he turned aside to fulfil the lusts of the flesh, but this he
never did. And as we trust through his work that we, now in this time, may be
regarded as sons of the Father despite the weakness and proneness to sin which
still exists in our members, we should rejoice in the Father's help and
companionship for the Son in his struggle against sin, rather than invent an
estrangement which corresponds to nothing real in the Gospel record of the
relationship between the Father and his beloved Son.
The only association of the idea of a curse with Christ is in
connection with the curse of the Law where Christ is spoken of as having "become
a curse for us", a reference, neither to his nature nor to any failure to keep
"all things which are written in the book of the law to do them", but to the
manner of the death by which he glorified God.
If the word "condemnation" is used at all in relation to our
Lord, we must carefully guard against the misunderstandings which this term
could introduce. Like us, our Lord Jesus was subject to infirmity and mortality,
as his mission required. But no condemnation which would imply guilt or God's
displeasure can be affirmed of the beloved Son of the Father. Jesus was unique
among men in that his constant submission to the will of God ensured unbroken
fellowship with his Father.
(1Pe 2:22; Mat 3:17; 11:27; 17:5; John 3:35; 11:41,42; 12:28;
Gal 3: 10-14.)
This, of course, brings us to the point where we must consider
the Father's part in the work of His Son. Jesus was like us in his fleshly
nature: and this he successfully overcame, so that at his death "the prince of
this world" could come and find nothing in him. All this had been kept at bay
while he lived, and all the weakness of flesh was now to be destroyed in his
death. Yet, as no man had the right to make himself a priest, so has no man the
right to make himself a saviour. Only God could appoint the man and the time. No
man left to himself can achieve spotless righteousness. So, of necessity, when
righteousness was achieved, it had to be by one given unfettered access to God,
who chose of his own free will to accept it ("Not my will, but thine, be done").
Sonship of the Father conveyed an insight, an intimacy with his God, an
unequalled knowledge of what was in man, fitting him eminently to be the Saviour
-- if only he would choose to be so. It conveyed peculiar temptations, too, such
as other men do not know (for which of us would make himself a laughing stock by
trying to turn stones into bread? or commit suicide by throwing himself
unsupported from great heights? or think of snapping his fingers to make the
world his kingdom? Yet all these things were possible to him, and with hard
travail, and by constant trust in his Father, were rejected). Sonship of God did
not make him sinless, but it did make sinlessness possible. And when all was
done, it was plain to all concerned that the work was a work of God, without
whom sinlessness could not have been achieved. In asking His righteous Son to
die, the Father showed how the power of sin could be brought to an end. In
granting him life when he had died, He showed that the victory was won indeed,
and in appointing him a mediator for his brethren He made accessible to us,
through him, all the blessings which he was sent to bring.
(John 14:30; Heb 5:4-5; Luke 22:42; 4:1-13.)
A MERCIFUL AND FAITHFUL HIGH PRIEST
We have purposely kept words like sacrifice, atonement, and
priest to a minimum. This is not because they are either unimportant or
irrelevant, but because many of our difficulties arise from a failure to
remember that the fundamental thing in the purpose of God was always intended to
be the coming, life, death, resurrection, ascension, and return of the Lord
Jesus Christ. All the types and shadows pointed to him, and were there because
of that. He was what he was, and did what he did, because this was the purpose
of God in him, and not because of what the types said. They did nothing to take
away sin; it was impossible that they ever could. They helped men to remember
that sin was real ("a remembrance made every year") and they pointed to the time
when it really would be conquered. So in the providence of God they were made
available to do the best that pictures and symbols can do to point to the real
thing.
And so we see the Lord Jesus Christ risen from the dead and
seated at the right hand of God. He has overcome for himself the power of sin
and has been granted endless life as the proper outcome. He has taught us the
reality and the power of sin, and bids us surrender in baptism all our
confidence in ourselves. This baptism joins us with the message of his cross,
and teaches us that our old man must be crucified with him with its affections
and lusts, and then buried with him. It joins us also with the hope of his new
life, giving us an introduction into the presence of the Father through him, and
telling us that, just as the Father forgives our past sins as a whole, when we
surrender in baptism, so He is active through His Son in hearing our prayers for
forgiveness, and for spiritual help now. And that Son is the more able to help
from the knowledge of temptation and its power, which he faced and defeated in
his life and finally in his death. Our acceptance of the cross is the acceptance
of the righteousness of God -- and also of His grace and love; it is the
acceptance of the helplessness of our nature -- and also of the way of help
through Christ; it is the thankful receiving of forgiveness and reconciliation
-- and also the promise that sin may be forgiven yet, and the man of God
progressively strengthened unto all good works.
It is, moreover, the joining together in one body by the cross
of diverse people, of many races and different temperaments, called upon to make
real in their life of fellowship the love of Christ, who, having loved his own
which were in the world, loved them to the end. It is a topic not for strife but
for endless contemplation in growing wonder. Its very humiliation, which the
Lord endured first and which Paul commends to us ("Let this mind be in you which
was also in Christ Jesus"), makes it imperative that our new calling be
fulfilled in love and forbearance one of another. And if we should find it
needful to debate and to instruct, then, on pain of our own rejection before
God, it must be in a spirit which would never willingly, through any folly, or
arrogance of ours, endanger the salvation of him, of anyone, for whom Christ
died.
COMMITTEE OF THE CHRISTADELPHIAN
July, 1971
