THE
BLOOD OF THE COVENANT
PREFACE TO THE FIRST
EDITION
Twenty years ago
the One Body passed through a controversial conflict concerning the nature of
Jesus Christ at his first appearing. It was then clearly demonstrated that
Christ was, by birth, related to condemnation in Adam to the same extent as the
rest of the race, and that He was made of the same fallen, or sinful nature. It
was also made clear that His death, as a sacrifice, was necessary to cleanse
himself as well as others. But the precise efficacy of His shed blood at the
different stages of the cleansing process was not fully elucidated. It is-to
supply this deficiency that the following pages have been written. It fell to my lot to take a prominent
position the aforesaid conflict, and as the result of it I wrote the pamphlet
entitled "The Doctrine of the Atonement." The scriptural principles
embodied therein constitute the basis of what I have here written; and they are
consistently applied to the several steps by which men may pass from
condemnation in Adam to immortalization in Christ. The subject is presented in
various phases, because so dealt with in the Scriptures, and this has
necessitated some amount of repetition in order to show the bearing of the
several testimonies quoted. Where the wording of the scriptural quotations
varies from the Authorized Version, it will be found, unless otherwise stated,
in the Revised Version.,
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
A second edition of
this work was published in 1913 in which the original preface appeared with no
additional prefatory remarks.
PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION
Twenty years ago the
One Body passed through a controversial conflict concerning the nature of Jesus
Christ at his first appearing. It was then clearly demonstrated that Christ
was, by birth, related to condemnation in Adam to the same extent as the rest
of the race, and that He was made of the same fallen, or sinful nature. It was
also made clear that His death, as a sacrifice, was necessary to cleanse
Himself as well as others. But the precise efficacy of His shed blood at the
different stages of the cleansing process was not fully elucidated. It is to
supply this deficiency that the following pages have been written. We deem it our sacred duty to continue the
controversial conflict as stated by the late J. J. Andrew in 1894. The nature
of Christ, and the necessity for His sacrificial death is made Scripturally
clear in the pages of this book The true Christadelphians of Arkansas heartily
endorse and send it out with the sincere desire of serving "the Truth as
it is in Jesus" and that we all may be of one mind in "things surely
believed among us" (Luke 1:1).
Blessed is he that readeth ("and understandeth"), yea rather,
blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it (Luke
.
29, 1927
JOHN W. TEAS
PREFACE
TO THE FOURTH EDITION
This reprinting is issued in the interest of presenting the
truths to which the original work was dedicated. Man’s relation to the
dispensation of death is just as needful of defining today as it was in 1894.
And the prospective relation to the dispensation of eternal life is just as
needful of definition today as it ever
was, perhaps even more so when we consider the signs in the ecclesiastical and
the political heavens. Unrestrained immorality and unprecedented preparation
for war depict a condition which coincides with what God’s holy prophets
foretold would precede the establishment of the
Whereas some disagree with the author on some points such as
Enoch not dying and the last sin being committed on the eighth symbolic day,
these are allegorical in nature, and do not, in our opinion, detract from the
sound exposition of Christ’s sacrifice and its efficacy.
John James Andrew (circa 1840-1907) was immersed in 1865. He
contributed to the Truth’s literature as early as June 1871 by articles in “The
Christadelphian.” About 1872 he wrote “Jesus Christ and Him Crucified,” an
exposition of the Saviour’s life and its meaning. This work has had several
editions and is currently in print under the title, “The Real Christ.” In the Renunciationist conflict of 1873 mentioned in the first
preface, J. J. Andrew, along with Robert Roberts, editor of “The Christadelphian,”
was a leading figure in opposing the unscriptural views of “free-life” and
“clean flesh.” He wrote “The Doctrine of the Atonement” in 1882. “The Blood of
the Covenant” was published in 1894 although it had been prepared in 1893 as a
paper entitled “The Judgment-seat in Relation to Atonement.” In July of 1894,
J. J. Andrew began publication of “The Sanctuary-Keeper,” a quarterly
periodical that continued until December of 1902 when declining health forced
the editor to suspend publication. Until his death in June, 1907, a paralytic
condition prohibited any further contribution to the Truth’s writings. Thomas
Williams, editor of “The Christadelphian Advocate,” in reporting the death of
J. J. Andrew in the August, 1907 issue, commented: “For nearly forty years Bro.
J. J. Andrew has been a power for good in the work of the Truth, both by pen
and by tongue, and especially by example as seen in a life that adorned the
doctrines he was so well able to forcefully, yet calmly and logically, set
forth. In the battles which, “The Christadelphian” fought for years for the
purity of the Truth, who did more able and valiant work than Bro. J. J.
Andrew?”
PREFACE
TO THE FIFTH EDITION
This fifth edition of THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT is issued in
the interest of making available the truths presented herein. It is made
possible by a publishing fund of the
In the 1967 publication it was erroneously stated to be the
third edition. We were not aware that a 1913 publication had been made. Also
included in this edition is an index of Scriptures quoted in the pamphlet
arranged in sequence from Genesis to Revelation. This should prove helpful in a
study of the material.
CHRISTADELPHIAN
PUBLICATIONS
October, 1985
1. The
Blood of the Everlasting Covenant
1
2. Edenic Law 2
3
Edenic Temptation 3
4. Edenic Disobedience 3
5. Edenic Nakedness 4
6. Edenic
Judgment 5
7.
Edenic Mercy
5
8. Edenic Clothing 6
9. Edenic Sacrifice 6
10. Edenic Justification 7
11. Edenic Allegory 9
12. Abel
t. Abraham 9
13. The Justification of Abraham 10
14. The Covenant of Circumci3ion
11
15 Th3
Covenant of Shadows 12
16. Shadow Offerings 16
17. The Curse of the Law 18
18. Jews and the Abrahamic Covenant 20
19. The Justification of Jesus 21
20. The Condemnation of Sin 23
21. The Resurrection of Christ - 26
22. Justification
by Christ’s
Blood 26
23. The Law of the Spirit of Life 28
24. Out of Adam into Christ 30
23~. Walking in the Light 32
26. The Lord of Dead and Living 33
27. “We shall not
All Sleep” 34
28. The Judgment-seat Summons 35
29. The Second Death 37
30 Immortalization 39
31. Recapitulation 40’
32. Objections 41
A. Historical Raising of the Dea
B. Rejection
of Christ.
C. Rejection of Apostolic Preaching.
D. The Justice of God.
E. The Power of God.
F. Dr. Thomas’s Teaching.
33. The Unity of the Truth
.. 53
The Blood of the Covenant
The terms of this law are brief but precise:--"Of every
tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of
good and evil thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die" (Gen. ii. 16, 17). Two consequences are here presented---one
expressed and the other implied; vis., die. and not
die. For death being the result of disobedience, it is inevitable that
continuance of life would be the accompaniment of continued obedience. How long
such a conditional state of existence would have been permitted it is
impossible to say. The disobedience of Adam has rendered unnecessary any
revelation on this point. If such disobedience had not taken place the life of
Adam would have been maintained either in the same nature, or by transformation
into a higher nature, according to the will of the Creator. No practical
benefit could accrue from knowing which course would have been adopted. Adam
having failed to keep the law given to him, the important point to consider is,
what death did he thereby incur, and what are the consequences to his
descendants? In answering the first part
of this question two phrases have to be considered, viz:
"in the day," and "thou shalt surely die." Various
explanations have been given to show in what way Adam died on the day of his
disobedience. It has been said, for instance, that it was fulfilled by Adam
beginning to die on that day; and, in support, attention is called to the
marginal rendering, "dying thou shalt die." But this is open to the
reply that the marginal rendering is a Hebrew idiom for death; just as the
marginal rendering for the last clause of the preceding verse "eating thou
shalt eat," is synonymous with the English eat. The reply is reasonable,
and therefore the preceding explanation cannot be accepted. Corruption
doubtless began immediately after disobedience, but that did not fulfill the
threatened death. The word "day," it has been suggested, is not
confined to twenty-four hours, but represents a long and indefinite period.
This cannot be considered-wholly satisfactory; for the "day"
mentioned in the command must have represented a period of time of which Adam
had knowledge or experience. Adam and Eve were both created on the sixth day
(Gen.1:27, 31), and the command given to Adam preceded the creation of Eve
(Gen.2:15-18, 21 22). Therefor Adam's experience of time was less than
twenty-four hours. On the seventh day God rested (Gen.2:2), and only one day is
subsequently mentioned in connection with the history of Eden. After
transgressing, Adam and his wife "heard the voice of the Lord God walking
in the garden in the cool of the day" (Gen. 3:8). What day was this? It
may have been the eighth day. Probably it was; for the incidents recorded in
Gen.3 do not require a longer period than one day; and there is no evidence
that the abode in Eden extended beyond the eighth day. If this view be in
accordance with facts, it is very suggestive in explaining the introduction of
the "eighth day" into
certain commands of the Mosaic law.
The arrangement by which a subtle serpent was allowed to
entice the first human pair to partake of the forbidden fruit was not a
superfluity. Adam and his wife were a part of the creation which was "very
good" (Gen.1:31). They had no "knowledge of good and evil;" they
could not distinguish between the one and the other; and they had no desire to
do that which was evil. To impart such a desire it was necessary for the
serpent to influence by subtle reasoning the mind of "the weaker
vessel," and thereby to inflame her imagination with the prospect of their
eyes being opened and becoming "as gods, knowing good and evil"
(Gen.3:5). The device succeeded, and from this time forward the desire to do
evil became an integral element of the human mind. It has been transmitted by
Adam to all his posterity, in whom it is manifested from earliest life. Hence
an outside tempter is not necessary to lead astray any who have been born of
woman. "Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and
enticed; then when lust hath conceived it bringeth forth sin"
(Jas.1:14,I5). Lust which leads to sin is necessarily evil, and this is the
prevailing characteristic of the human race; for "all that is in the
world" consists of "the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes,
and the pride of life" (1 Jno.2:16). Lust, or the desire to do evil, is
the offspring of the first sin and the cause of all subsequent sin. On this
account it is denominated "sin in the flesh"(Rom.8:3),
and, as a consequence, is the subject of divine reprobation.
Sin has thus two aspects, moral and physical, and "the blood of the
everlasting covenant" is required to take away the one as well as the
other.
4 EDENIC DISOBEDIENCE
The command given to
Adam was of the simplest kind; it did not involve his doing anything; it simply
imposed a restriction. But this single interdict, in the face of temptation, he
was unable to keep. He did not pluck the forbidden fruit; this was the act of
his wife, who, after eating herself, "gave also unto her husband with her;
and he did eat" (Gen.3:6). Apparently no sophistical reasoning was used to
persuade him; and he needed none; he partook of that which was offered him,
knowing what he was doing "Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being
beguiled hath fallen into transgression" (1 Tim.2:14). When Adam disobeyed, all his descendants were
in his loins, and therefore in a certain sense they "all have sinned"
(Rom.5:12); they sinned in him, even as "Levi paid tithes in Abraham"
(Heb.7:9). In submitting to be blessed by Melchizedec, Abraham voluntarily
acknowledged his inferiority; for "the less is blessed of the better"
(ver. 7). But the Levitical priesthood, not being alive, was unable to exhibit
any such acknowledgment; nevertheless their inferiority was as real as if they
had actually joined Abraham in the payment of tithes. In like manner the
descendants of Adam are accounted as having "sinned" in him. They do
not possess moral guilt, as he did; for some have "not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's transgression" (Rom.5:14): nevertheless the result is
the same. 'He became a sinner, whereas they are "made sinners" (Rom.
5:19) without any exercise of will on their part. That is to say, God, by
accounting them to be in Adam when he sinned, and by defining their evil desire
to be 'sin," has constituted them "sinners;" the object being
that none might be delivered from the consequences of sin without the exercise
of Divine mercy.
When Adam and his
wife were created "they were both naked. and were not ashamed"
(Gen.2:25). :But immediately they had sinned "the eyes of them both were
opened, and they knew that they were naked" (Gen.3:7). From that time
shame for a naked condition has been a characteristic of human nature--a proof
that the evil desire which Adam imbibed by sinning has been inherited by his
posterity. Hence the word "naked" is a figurative description for a
state of sin. Aaron "made Israel naked unto their shame" by making a
golden calf for them to worship (Exod.32:24, 25). And Ahaz "made Judah
naked and transgressed sore against the Lord" (2 Chron.28:19). Adam and
his wife endeavored to hide their nakedness by garments of "fig
leaves." Immediately afterwards "they heard the voice of the Lord
God," and they "hid themselves amongst the trees" (Gen.3:8).
When questioned as to where he was, Adam said, "I was afraid because I was
naked; and I hid myself" (ver. 10). Was this the sole cause of his fear?
If the fig-leaf garments were sufficient to hide their sense of shame, why should
they "hide themselves from the presence of the Lord God?" Was it not
an attempt to escape the execution of the Edenic law? Remembering the words,
"In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die," would they
not expect to be visited with death on that very day? If so, the hiding of
their persons after covering their nakedness possesses a significance of its
own. Adam's statement about his nakedness gave rise to two questions:-"Who
told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded
thee that thou shouldst not eat?" (ver. 11). The import of these questions
is obvious. They imply that the eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil would impart to Adam and his wife the knowledge that they were
"naked." Previously they were ignorant of the distinction between
nakedness and covering; now they both knew and felt it. ~
This process
commenced with the questions quoted in the last section. The answers of Adam led to the woman being
questioned. Then followed sentence on the deceiver, the deceived, and the
enticed, in the order in which they had acted. The serpent was doomed to eat
dust and go- on its belly; the woman to bring forth children in greater number
and with increased sorrow; and the man to obtain food out of cursed ground by
the sweat of his face until he returned to the dust (Gen.3:14-19). A return to
the dust was not a part of Adam's lot prior to his disobeying the Edenic law. A
change must, therefore, have taken place in his physical constitution as the
result of this decree; "Corruption is in the world through lust" (2
Pet.1:4). How the change was effected is not revealed, neither is it necessary.
But it is all important to recognize that there was such a change, and that the
posterity of Adam has inherited his nature after that change was effected. Just
as Adam's descendants were in his loins when he partook of the tree, so were
they in his loins when he was judged and condemned. Then it was that "many
were made sinners by one man's disobedience," and "judgment came upon
all men to condemnation (Rom. 7: 18,19). The descendants of Adam were condemned
to death before they were born. That the sentence of condemnation does not
specify the mode of death; it admits of death by physical decay or death by
violence. Men have returned to the dust in both ways. Millions have died
prematurely by accident, war, convulsions of nature, and other Divine
judgments. Some have thus suffered for their own sins; but others before they
have lived long enough to commit sin, or without being related to a Divine
moral law. The only explanation in the latter case is that they had been
"made," or constituted "sinners." Owing to this fact, all
men are liable as soon as they are born, to be cut off by death.
7 EDENIC MERCY
After questioning Adam and his wife, and
before condemning them, the Lord God addressed the Serpent. Why was this? Was
it merely because the Serpent had, by beguiling the woman, taken the first step
in effecting Edenic disobedience? A consideration of the words addressed to the
Serpent suggests another and a higher reason. After condemning the Serpent to
go on its belly, the Lord God addressed to it, a prediction concerning its own
seed and the seed of the woman. These two seeds were to be at enmity, and each
was to be bruised in the conflict the seed of the Serpent in the head and the
seed of the woman in the heel (Gen.3:15). Why was not this prediction spoken to
Adam or his wife? Was it not because they had produced a breach between
themselves and their Creator? They had
previously been in direct communion with God, but sin deprived them of the
privilege; they were in process of judgment for their "offense," and
until that process was completed they deserved only to be addressed in words of
condemnation. The Serpent had no moral relationship to the Creator, and the
words to it forshadowed no favor for itself or its
seed; but for the woman and her seed they did. They contained an element of
mercy of which there had been no previous intimation. By disobeying the Edenic
law they had incurred immediate death, which would necessarily be death by
slaying. If this had been inflicted they would have had no seed. Therefore, the
promise in which specific mention was made of the woman's seed--addressed to the
Serpent in their hearing---was equivalent to informing them that they should
not suffer immediate death. By the condemnation immediately addressed to them
they learned that this did not mean exemption from all consequences of their
disobedience; for the ground was to be cursed for their sake, and, instead of
eating freely of fruits, made ready for their hands, they were to toil for
their subsistence, and then return to the dust. After listening to the Divine
promise and sentence the fear which led them to hide themselves amongst the
trees would disappear: and of this Adam gave evidence when he "called his
wife's name Eve." This name means living (see margin), and Adam gave it
"because she was the mother of all living" (Gen. iii. 20). By this
act Adam showed that he understood the promise to guarantee a posterity and
that he believed in its fulfillment. If death had been inflicted on the day of
eating the forbidden fruit Eve would never have been a "mother," and
there would have been no "living" humanity.
Immediately
after Adam had named his wife, "the Lord God made coats of skins and
clothed them" (ver. 21). This was obviously to supersede the fig-leaf
garments which they had devised. For
what reason' The nature of the clothing suggests an answer. Where would the
"coats of skins" be obtained?
From animals. How? By slaying
them. And who would slay them? He who "made the coats." The slaying
of the animals would involve shedding of blood, and thus we arrive at the fact
that the clothing provided by the Lord God possessed a significance of the
greatest importance. As nakedness represents a sinful condition, so clothing
based upon blood shedding is used to signify a covering for sin. It is the
origin of the expression, "Covered in relation to sin: "Blessed is he
whose ... sin is covered" (Ps.32:1): "Thou hast covered all their
sin" (Ps. 85: 2). It is the foundation for the special garments for
priestly functions under the Mosaic Law:--"Thou shalt put upon Aaron the
holy garments ... and thou shalt bring his sons and clothe them with
coats" (Exod. 40:13, 14). And it explains why Christ is spoken of its a
garment of righteousness:--"As many of you as were baptized into Christ
have put on Christ" (Gal. 3:27). "Christ Jesus who, of God, is made unto
us wisdom and righteousness" (1 Cor. 1:30).
The process of slaying the animals and making
the coats of skins would probably be witnessed by Adam and Eve. If so, it is
not difficult to imagine the interest with which they would view the same. It
would be to them an object lesson in sacrifice for sin. To teach them what?
That as they had, by sin, incurred a violent death, a violent death was
necessary to take away sin. Whether or not they learned this truth, certain it
is that subsequent revelation contains it. And, as sacrifice out of Eden is but
a continuation of extension of sacrifice in Eden, the principle on which the
one is based is obviously the same as that which underlies the other. When an
Israelite under the Mosaic law offered a burnt offering for oblation he was
required to "lay his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it
shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him" (Lev.1 :4). Why was
his hand to be laid on the head of the animal?
To transfer to it, by a figure, his sins. This is shown by the
injunction concerning the scape goat:-"Aaron shall lay both his hands upon
the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the
children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he
shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand
of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness; and the goat shall bear upon
him all their iniquities unto a solitary land" (Lev. 16: 21, 22). The animal
devoted to sacrifice on whose head the hands of a sinner were placed, became,
by that act, a sin-hearer; and immediately afterwards it was slain. What does
that prove? That his was the death due for the sins transferred to it. Hence
the sinner, in effect, acknowledged that for his sins he had incurred a death
like that inflicted on the animal; in other words, that he deserved to be
slain. Christ is described as "the Lamb that hath been slain from the
foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8). How was He slain prior to the
Crucifixion? In type, by all the sacrifices prescribed by God from Eden to the
abolition of the Mosaic covenant. Christ, like the slain animals, was a
sin-bearer:-He bare the sin of many" (Isa. 53:12); but he was not made a
sin-bearer in the way they were. Animal sacrifice was "a shadow"
(Heb. 10:1) but Christ's sacrifice was the substance. Hence sin could not be
transferred to him figuratively; it must be imparted to him in reality.
Therefore, he was "made sin"(2 Cor. v. 21) by being "made of a
woman" (Gal. 4:4); he "took part of the same flesh and blood" as
his brethren, and "in all things" was "made like unto" them
(Heb.11:14, 17). What was necessary to deliver him from the sin-nature of which
he was "made?" To be slain; by that event God "condemned sin in
the flesh" of; His son Jesus (Rom. 8:3). Therefore, sacrifice is as
essential to take away sin in its physical, as in its moral, aspect; a violent
death is the punishment due to the one as well as to the other; and physical
sin is as powerful to keep closed the gates of the grave as is actual
transgression. Christ only possessed sin physically, not morally, but all who
are sprinkled with his blood (1 Pet. i. 2) possess sin in both forms. Those who
enter Christ in the Apostolic way are able to say, "Our old man was
crucified with him" (Rom. vi. 6), or, "I have been crucified with
Christ" (Gal. ii.20). Having been baptized into His death (Rom. 6:4) they
have thereby partaken of His crucifixion,
their baptism being a practical confession that they deserved for their
"sin in the flesh and for "wicked works" (Col. 1:21) a violent
death similar to that which was inflicted on Christ. They died symbolically, an
event referred to in the following passages "If ye died with Christ from
the rudiments of the world" (Col. 11. 20); "For ye are dead and your
life is hid with Christ in God" (Col. iii. 3); "We thus judge that
one died for all, therefore all died" (2 Cor.5:14) act of offering the
animal sacrifices which foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ embodied the same
feature as baptism into Christ; the sinner died symbolically in the animal
slain. It is on the principle that the fulfillment of "the law of sin and
death" in Eden is to be explained. Adam was threatened with death on the
day that he sinned, but God, by an exercise of mercy, provided an animal on
which was inflicted the literal death incurred by Adam. What effect did this
have upon Adam' He died symbolically in the: death of the animal, and the
Edenic law was thereby fulfilled m its first stage. All subsequent animal
sacrifice was based on the same principle as Edenic sacrifice, but to be of any
service in the abolition of death, it required to be supplemented by sacrifice
of a higher order.
Justification is the reverse of condemnation.
These two conditions cannot co-exist in the same sense and for the same thing.
the Greek word for justify means "to make just or hold guiltless,"
and the meaning of the English word is "to pardon, and clear from guilt,
to absolve, to acquit, to exculpate." Justification is equivalent to
reconciliation atonement, purging, cleansing, remission, redemption,
purification, and forgiveness. It is typical and anti-typical, and it has a
legal, and a moral, aspect. The legal aspects represented by the expression
"made righteous" (Rom. 5. 19); and the moral aspect, by the statement
"that by works a man is justified and not by faith only" (Jas. 11.
24). Neither legal, nor moral, justification can exist without blood-shedding;
the legal must precede the moral; and both legal and moral must precede the
bestowal of eternal life. As soon as Adam was clothed with animal skins he was
justified through the Edenic sacrifice and belief in the Edenic promise. His
justification was legal not moral; he was, by a typical sacrifice, "made
righteous," but he did not possess a righteous character. From what was he
thus justified? The "offense" he had committed and the
"sin-in-the-flesh" which it had produced. What was its effect? It
averted a violent death thereby prolonging his life, and giving him a second
probation. Did it alter the physical consequences of his offense? No; the
ground continued to be cursed, he had to toil for bread, evil desire still
dwelt in him, and when his vitality was exhausted he died. The legal
justification which God has provided by animal sacrifices and other ceremonies,
is not accompanied by the removal of the physical consequences of sin; this is
promised as the result of the legal justification being supplemented by moral
justification; or, in other words, by imputed righteousness being succeeded by
actual righteousness. Adam, after justification. was in the condition described
by the Psalmist: "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin
is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth
not iniquity" (Ps.32: 1, 2). Whether he maintained this blessedness is not
recorded; the judgment-seat will reveal it. For this purpose he will be raised
from the dead. Would he have been amenable to resurrection and future judgment
if he had not entered upon this second probation? No, he would have been slain and the Edenic
law would have forever held him in death. What was an essential preliminary to
his entrance on a, second probation? Justification from his act, of
disobedience. Could the justification with which he was favoured
in Eden take away his sin and destroy its consequences? Not of itself. What was
further required? Ratification by the death and resurrection of the seed of the
woman. On what basis will he be raised from the dead On the basis of Edemic
justification, a second probation, and the blood of Christ. And if he receive
immortality what will be the foundation for it? Edenic justification,
faithfulness during this second probation, and the blood of Christ. Are Adam's descendants,
by birth, in the position of their first parents before or subsequent to
justification? Before justification; for although condemnation is racial,
justification is individual. What follows from this? That if they died without
justification from his "offense," they die under the same conditions
as he would have done if God had slain him on the day he sinned. He would have
returned to the dust never to resume life; and so do they. It is true that the
death specified in the Edenic law is not eternal death; if it had been there
would have been no scope for Divine mercy. But in the absence of justification
from the "offense" which occasioned death there is no escape from the
tomb.
The
events recorded in the first three chapters of Genesis, though literal, contain
also allegory. The creation pre-figures those who are "created in Christ
Jesus unto good works" (Eph.11. 10), of which God's son is "the
beginning" (Rev. iii.14). The sun, moon and stars are signs of Royal
power, Ecclesiastical organizations, and Princes. Heaven and earth are used as
symbols for governments and people, grass for human nature, and trees for
nations. Light is a figure of truth, and darkness of ignorance. Eden is a type
of the Kingdom of God, Adam of Christ, and Eve of the Church. Adam's deep sleep
finds a parallel in Christ's death; the Serpent represents wicked men;
nakedness, sin; and coats of skins, the righteousness of Christ. The seventh
day typifies the millennial rest, and the previous six days the six thousand
years of sin's reign. What about the eighth day? Has that no significance? Is it not analogous
to the period immediately succeeding the seven thousand years? What will then
take place? "The dragon, that old Serpent, which is the Devil and
Satan" will "deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of
the earth," and they "compassed the camp of the saint; about, end the
beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them"
(Rev. 20: 2, 8, 9). Thus on the eighth literal day the first sin was committed
and thereby a violent death incurred; on the eighth symbolic day the last sin
is committed, and all who share it are
subjected to a violent death. On the eighth literal day judgment is administered
with mercy; but on the eighth symbolic day judgment is executed without
mercy.
How does this allegorical aspect affect the
case of Adam? Did his symbolic death on
the eighth literal day keep him from literal death? No; for "all the days
that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died" (Gen. v.
5); he died literally on the first symbolic day of a thousand years
Sacrifice in Eden was but the inauguration of
sacrifice out of Eden. Its necessity was recognized by Abel but not by Cain
(Gen.4:4). That it formed an essential part of God's "way" (Gen. vl. 12) of righteousness from Abel to the Deluge is indicated by the
distinction in the Divine instructions about the ark, between the 'clean
beast" and "beasts that are not clean" (Gen. 7: 2), and also by
the fact that Noah, on leaving the ark, "builded an altar unto the Lord;
and took of every clean beast and of every clean fowl and offered burnt
offerings on the altar" (Gen. 8: 20). It is also involved in the statement
that "then began men to call upon the name of the Lord (Gen. 4:28) when
Abraham likewise called upon the name of the Lord, he builded an altar unto the
Lord" (Gen.12: 8). For what purpose?' The offering of sacrifice; without
which an altar is useless. When Peter, for the first time preached,
"remission of sins" in the name Jesus Christ (Acts 2: 38) he
announced that "whosoever shall ca11 on the name of the Lord shall be
saved" (Acts 2: 21). In explaining how this was to be done, he informed his
hearers that they must "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus"
(verse 38) · This was equivalent to saying that they must by baptism recognize
Christ's death to be a sacrifice for sin. Hence this ceremony takes the place
of animal sacrifice. Baptism has been a necessity since the Crucifixion, just
as animal sacrifice was indispensable previously In other words, a recognition,
in the way appointed by God, of blood-shedding, is absolutely necessary for
justification from sin. To this, Enoch was no exception. He "walked with
God and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24). He was translated that
he should not see death" for "he pleased God" (Heb.11: 5). Like
the other righteous men of the antediluvian age he called on the name of the
Lord in the offering of sacrifice: and thereby was justified from sin. He
subsequently walked in harmony with his justified condition. And on this basis
the sacrifice of Christ was prospectively applied to him, just as that
sacrifice is now retrospectively applied to those who are baptized into the
name of Jesus Christ. The translation of Enoch, although an exception to the
ordinary course of things, did not violate any previous Divine decree. It would
have been quite consistent with Edenic law if God had likewise translated all
others who were justified by a sacrifice for sin and an approved walk. But He
did not so act; He allowed them to die. Does this constitute a barrier to the
realization of their hopes? No; because their justification requires their
restoration to life. Does their death contribute anything towards taking away
the condemnation they inherited from Adam?
Not in the least; for their death was not sacrificial, and they were not
free from personal transgression. They went into the grave as a result of
Adam's "offense," but after being justified from that
"offense" by sacrifices which foreshadowed the sacrifice of Christ;
and therefore they died with the certainty-subject to Christ's death and
resurrection ~ being brought forth from the death-state at God's own appointed
time. Enoch, as the "seventh from Adam," (Jude ver. 14) foreshadows
the brethren of Christ who "are alive and remain until the coming of the
Lord" and who will, without entering the grave, be exalted to "ever
be with the Lord" (1 Thess. 4: 15, 17). The principle, which explains
Enoch’s exemption from death, is equally applicable to them.
"Abraham believed God and it was counted
unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4: 3). How? By belief only? No; by belief and obedience. According to
Divine command he left "Ur of the Chaldees to go into the land of
Canaan" ('Gen.11 31; 12: 1). Was this the only practical exhibition of his
belief? No; after arriving in the land of promise "he builded an altar
unto the Lord" (Gen. 12: 7, 8). Why?
Because he was a sinner by birth and by deed, and needed sacrifice to
cover his sin. Hence the Apostle, in showing that "faith was reckoned to
Abraham for righteousness," quotes from Ps. 32: 1;-"Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered" (Rom. 4: 7).
Abraham recognized that he was a, sinner, and that to inherit the land his sin
must be covered. Therefore, he "called upon the name of the Lord"
(Gen. 12: 8) by the erection of an altar and the offering of sacrifice. His
recognition of sacrifice as a Divine requirement was repeated after his return
from Egypt by a visit to "the altar which he had made at the first"
and by again "calling on the name of the Lord" (Gen. 13:4); also by
acknowledging Melchizedeck to be "Priest of the Most High God" (Gen.
14:1·8); and by slaying, as commanded, a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtle-dove,
and a pigeon, to provide what God required for the purpose of confirming his
promise (Gen.15: 9-17). He believed not only the promise concerning the land,
but that its inheritance required the taking away of sin by blood-shedding.
Thus was Abraham justified by faith. He was subsequently "justified by
works, when he had offered Isaac, his son, upon the altar" (Jas.2:21).
"Faith
was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness..........when he was in
uncircumcision and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised" ('Rom.
4:9-11). Circumcision was a "seal" and a "sign;" as a seal
it constituted a Divine assurance of the existing righteousness of Abraham.
That "righteousness' included blood-shedding; so did the "seal:"
for when Zipprah was compelled to circumcise her son,
she said to Moses, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me" (Exod. 4:
25). Of what was circumcision a "sign?" Of the Crucifixion, which is
described as "the circumcision of Christ" (Col. 2:11). To "cut
off" a piece of human flesh (Exod. 4: 25) signified the future cutting off
of the Messiah by death (Dan 9: 26); and as Christ died to "put away
sin" (Heb. 9: 26), circumcision was necessarily related to that object.
How? It showed that the circumcised child was a sinner by birth, and that it
needed blood-shedding to cleanse it from that condition, independent of its
subsequent course of life; for at eight days of age it could not have committed
transgression. If a child of Abraham was not circumcised it was said, by
Jehovah, to have "broken my covenant," and as a consequence was
doomed to be "cut off from his people" ('Gen. 17: 14). The practical
effect of this is seen in the case of Moses, who while in Midian, neglected to
circumcise his son. Because of this omission "the Lord met him, and sought
to kill him" (Exod. iv. 24); and he was only spared from being slain by
the action of his wife in angrily complying with the covenant of circumcision.
From this incident we learn that every father, descended from Abraham, who
omitted to circumcise his son, was liable to lose his life. To what was the
uncircumcised son liable? The same; for through his parents he had
"broken" Jehovah's "covenant;" and he who fails to comply
with a Divine command, from whatever case, must die. There was no injustice in
this; for the child was born under condemnation to death for Adam's offense and
was therefore liable to that condemnation being put in force any day. Its birth
was due to the mercy of God as first expressed in the Edenic promise
(Gen.3:15); without which there would have been no sons of Adam; and although
the promise involves the existence of the Seed of the Serpent until completely
defeated by the Seed of the Woman, it is a part of the Divine prerogative to
bring death on any who are still under Adamic condemnation, at any time. Hence
the premature death of many who have no moral guilt; death reigns "even
over them that have not sinned after the similitude of Adam's
transgression" (Rom. v. 14). In circumcision God provided a ceremony which
warded off premature death, for in decreeing that the uncircumcised son of Abraham
should be "cut off from his people, He, in effect, promised that the
circumcised one should, not be so "cut off." The covenant of
circumcision was thus a, shadow of the Abrahamic covenant; as the latter is
intended to destroy death, so the former was designed to avert premature death;
in other words, the one gives eternal life, and the other gives a lease of
present life, the life in both cases to be enjoyed on the land of Canaan. How
long did the lease of life resulting from circumcision last? Until the one on
whom the ceremony was performed committed transgression. He then became again
liable to premature death, and needed animal bloodshedding to avert it. But
does not the decree, "cut off from his people," imply that the child
was simply to be separated from the fleshly seed of Abraham and yet continue to
live the full term of his physical vitality? It goes beyond this. The
imputation attached to the child of having "broken" God's
covenant" involves death; and the fact that Moses was in danger of losing
his life for omitting to circumcise his son, proves that death was the penalty
for violation of the command. The mode and time for its execution was not
specified, thus leaving it uncertain as to how and when God would "cut
off" the lives of both parent and child. The uncircumcised son of Abraham
occupied a similar relationship to its disobedient parent that the sons of men
occupy towards Adam; both have sinned in their head, and although to this there
does not attach moral guilt, the penalty for it is death. Abraham was
circumcised many years after being justified by sacrifice. But afterwards
circumcision constituted the first stage of justification. The ceremony was
required to be performed when the "man child" was "eight days
old" (Gen. 17:12). What significance attaches to this? It is suggestive of
the day on which Adam sinned, the eighth day from the beginning of the
creation, and thereby brings to mind the fact that, as an extension of Adam,
the child did not deserve to live longer, and that, like Adam, it was the
recipient of Divine mercy expressed by a blood-shedding ceremonial. It also
points to the eighth day of a thousand; years, when "evil doers shall be
cut off" (Ps. 37:9) finally, by fire coming "down from God out of
Heaven" and devouring them (Rev.20:9) There is a moral, as well as a
physical, aspect to circumcision it is styled circumcision of the heart
(Deut.10: 16; 30:6). Circumcision of the flesh was necessary to an entrance
into the Abrahamic covenant, but of itself it could not give the blessing of
that covenant. It must be followed by circumcision of the heart and ears (Acts
7:51), namely, the cutting off from the conduct whatever was obnoxious to
Jehovah, or a hindrance to faithfulness in his service, even to the extent of a
"hand," "foot," or "eye" (Mark ix. 43-47). To
circumcise, in all its aspects, is to cut off all round. Circumcision was
incorporated in the Mosaic law, and was as obligatory as it had previously been
to the descendants of Abraham; no Jewish or Gentile male if "uncircumcised,"
being allowed to partake of the Passover (Exod.12:48). It was on the basis of
circumcision that "the oracles of God were committed" to Jews (Rom.
iii. 2). This privilege imposed upon them the duty of preserving; and defending
those oracles, and of accepting whatever further revelation came from their
Author. The brethren of Christ, now occupy in relation to those oracles, the
same position; they have been "circumcised with the circumcision made
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism" (Col.11:12). And they
are, as a consequence, required to "keep the commandments of God, and have
the testimony of Jesus Christ" (Rev.12:17; 3:8).
The covenant given to Israel through Moses
was "a shadow of good things to come" (Heb. 10: 1). A shadow is an
outline of something real; it is formed by the contrast between light and
darkness, and if anything occur to interfere with that contrast the shadow disappears.
The "rudiments" (Gal: iv. 3) composing the Mosaic covenant are styled
"patterns" (Heb. ix. 23), and that covenant is described as
containing "the form of knowledge and of the truth" (Rom. 11:20). It
embodies, therefore, a series of object lessons concerning sin and its remedy,
and constitutes an epitome of the plan of salvation. It did not supersede the
Edemic promise, the sacrifice instituted in Eden, the Abrahamic covenant or the
covenant of circumcision; "it was added:' to these things 'because of
transgression" (Gal.3:19). For what object? "That sin by the
commandment might become exceeding sinful" (Rom.7:13);that is, to show in
a multiplicity of ways the heinousness and power of sin. The Mosaic Law was
"holy, and just, and good" (Rom. 7:12), but by its numerous
enactment’s it excited the "sin In the flesh" inherited from Adam.
"I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the
law had said, Thou shalt not covet" (Rom.7:7). So exacting were its requirements
that no Jew begotten by the flesh could keep it perfectly; it was a "yoke
which neither our fathers nor we," said the Apostles and elders,
"were able to bear" (Acts 15:6-10). All were guilty of its violation,
and therefore they were, "through fear of death all their lifetime subject
to bondage" (Heb. ii. 15). What purpose, then, was effected by it? It
demonstrated the inability of unaided flesh and blood to obey God perfectly,
and the consequent need for dependence on God's mercy (Rom.3:19). "For
what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending
His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh," accomplished (Rom. 8:3).
That is, He provided one who, though "made under the law" (Gal.3: 4)
and "in all points tempted like as we are" (Heb.4: 15) did "always
those things that pleased" his Father (Jno.8:29). In regard to his own
conduct he was "without sin" (Heb4: l5); an indispensable requisite
for his position as "the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the
world" (Jno.1: 29). Hence Christ is the "body" (Col.2:17) or
"enduring substance" (Heb.10:34) of which the Mosaic ceremonies were
shadows or "patterns." These shadows were designed for instruction,
and therefore some of their features must be analogous to those of the substance.
The first and most prominent feature of the Mosaic covenant related to life and
land; it was "ordained to life" (Rom. 7: 10). What life? The present
life; "I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and
evil," that, by obedience, "thou mayest live and multiply; and the
Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess
it" (Deut 30:15-16);'It is your life, and through this thing ye shall
prolong your days in the land' (Deut. 32:47). This promise involved immunity
from the chief cause of death, namely, disease:--"If thou wilt diligently
hearken to the voice of the Lord thy God. I will put none of these diseases
upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians" (Exod. 15: 26); Deut.
28: 60). Hence, if Israel had been obedient there would have been no premature
deaths among them. The continuance of life conditional on obedience involves
the termination of life in the presence of disobedience. This is specifically
stated in the detailed enactments of the Mosaic Law. Israel was commanded to "put
to death" a blasphemer. (Lev. 24:16), a murderer (ver. 17), the curser of
father or mother (Lev. 20: 9), adulterer (ver. 10), the man or woman with a
familiar spirit (ver. 27), a, witch (Exod. 22:18), a Sabbath-breaker (Num.
15:35). etc. It was enacted that the death be inflicted by stoning, and that
"all the congregation" take part in its execution (Num. 15:35), in
order that "all Israel" might "hear and fear and do no more any
such wickedness" (Deut. 13:11); "so thou shalt," saith the Lord,
"put the evil away from among you" (Deut.17:7). Israel was thus to
cooperate with God in the extermination of evil-doers, for the purpose of
maintaining their holiness as a nation (Exod.19:6). If this duty had been
rigidly performed Israel would have consisted only of righteous persons; but it
was neglected, and as a consequence evil-doers increased. Therefore God visited
the nation with "pestilence" (Deut. 28:21), "consumption,"
'fever," "inflammation,' "the sword, blasting, mildew, (ver.
22), drought (ver. 23), heavy rain (ver. 24), defeat in war (ver. 25),
"wonderful plagues," "sore sickness" (ver. 59), "the
disease of Egypt" (ver. ·60), etc., in order that they might be
"destroyed" (ver. 61), and "left few in number" (ver. 62).
While in the wilderness God exhibited His anger against evil doers on several
occasions by the infliction of a violent death. For offering strange fire Nadab and Abihu were destroyed by
fire (Lev. 10:2);for rebelling against the authority of Moses, Korah, Dathan,
and Abiram, with their families, were "swallowed up" by the earth
(Num. 16:32); for charging Moses and Aaron with having killed Korah and his
companions "fourteen thousand and seven hundred" died by plague (Num.
16:11-50); for complaining, at a place subsequently called Tabersh,
"the fire of the Lord consumed them that were in the uttermost parts of
the camp" (Num.11:1.-3); for accusing Moses of bringing them "out of
Egypt to die in the wilderness" much people "of Israel died"
from bites of "fiery serpents" sent by the Lord (Num.21: 5-6); for
"joining himself unto Baal-peor" Israel
lost by plague "twenty and four thousand" (Num.25:1-9); and for
listening to the false report of the ten spies about the land and proposing to
"return into Egypt" (Num. 14: 1-4), God threatened to extinguish the
whole nation by "pestilence" (ver. 12); but at the intercession of
Moses (vers. 13-19), He "pardoned" them (ver. 20),and instead of
inflicting immediate death he allowed all above twenty years to die by degrees
during their remaining thirty eight years of wilderness wanderings (vers. 23,
29-35). For some acts of disobedience the law said that transgressors should be
"cut off." If at the Passover feast an Israelite ate "leavened
bread from the first day until the seventh, that soul shall be cut off from Israel"
(Exod.12: 15); if anyone compounded anything like the anointing oil or put any
of it "upon a stranger," he "shall be even cut off from his
people" (Exod. 30:33); he who "doeth ought presumptuously shall be
cut off from among his people" (Num. 15:30) "that soul shall utterly
be cut off; his iniquity shall be upon him" (ver 31). In these passages
what is the meaning of "cut off." Death. Does not the expression
"from Israel'', or "from among his people" qualify it so as to
admit of life apart from the nation, a kind of excommunication? No; for in
prescribing what is to be done with one "that giveth any of his seed unto
Moloch" it is first said "he shall surely be put to death" (Lev.
20:2) and then the Lord says, "I will set my face against that man, and will
cut him off from among his people"
(ver. 3). The one phrase explains the other; to be "cut off" is to
suffer premature death. This is its invariable meaning when applied to sinners.
The antediluvians were "cut off" by water (Gen.9:11); the inhabitants
of Canaan were "cut off" by Jehovah through Israel (Deut.12: 29); the
Anakims were "cut off" by Joshua so that he
"destroyed them utterly" (Josh.11:21); and Jehu
was "anointed to cut off the house of Ahab" (2 Chron. 22:7) . This
evidence, together with that already adduced (Section 14), proves that to
"cut off" was to inflict death in a special manner. The Israelites
were therefore required to circumcise their sons to prevent such a death. This
ceremony introduced them to a state of justification from the condemnation
under which they were born and if no sin had been afterwards committed and
Israel had kept God's "statutes" and "judgments," they
would have continued to live in the flesh as long as Jehovah thought fit;
"which if a man do, he shall live in them" (Lev.18:5; Rom.
10:5). What was the first obligation
imposed upon Jewish children? Obedience to parents: Honour thy father and
mother; which is the first commandment with promise" (Eph. 6:2). What was
the "promise'" "That thy days may be long upon the land which
the Lord thy God giveth thee" (Exod. 20:12). Continuance of Jewish
child-life was thus conditional; if not obedient to father and mother its
"days" would not be "long upon the land." When a son became
"stubborn and rebellious" and refused to "obey the voice of his
father, or the voice of his mother," his parents were instructed to
"bring him out unto the elders of his city" that he might be stoned
to death (Deut.21:18-21). Only faithful parents would carry out this
injunction; unfaithful parents would neglect it. And then would interpose in
such ways as he deemed best to prevent rebellious sons having "long days
upon the land." Did not Jewish children die in infancy to the same extent
that Gentile children do? There is no evidence that they did. And if they did
so, it was in consequence of unfaithfulness on the part of their parents. If
the parents disregarded God's law they would be liable to "disease"
and the other "curses" threatened against them (Deut 28:15-68); and
the children of such would necessarily share those curses. Of this an
illustration is given in the case of Achan. Because
he "sinned against the Lord," not only he, but "his sons and
daughters," and his cattle were "stoned" to death (Josh. 7:
20-25). Achan and his children having been justified
in shadow, from Adamic condemnation; now suffered, for the iniquity of their
head, the Mosaic curse. When Jewish parents were obedient to the law, and
brought up their children in the right way, they ensured to themselves and
their familiar the continuance of life in the land. When the children reached
such an age that they could understand the requirements of the Mosaic law, they
became individually responsible to its blessings and curses. From birth to
circumcision the sons were "dead" in Adam (2 Cor. 5:14); but when
they were circumcised they became "alive" (Rom. 8:9), and so
continued until they rebelled against their parents, or disobeyed some other
command of the Mosaic Law. They then became dead in Moses; for the law given through
him was "the ministration of death" (2 Cor.3:7). This change of
condition is described by the Apostle Paul:--"I was without the law once.
But when the commandment came sin revived, and I died" ('Rom. 8:9). If the
sin came within the scope of sacrifice, they averted immediate death by
offering the prescribed atonement; in so doing they died symbolically in the
death of the animal, and were restored to the "alive" condition into
which they were introduced by circumcision. Bat, if the sin committed was presumptuous--as
in the case of Nadab, Abihu,
Korah, Dathan and Abriam--no sacrifice was available,
Num. 15:30, 31). Obedience to the
Mosaic covenant gave no reward beyond this life, and the punishments for
disobedience were confined to this life, with death as the finality. Hence
"every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of
reward" (Heb.2:2)· No provision was made in that covenant for
resurrection, but it shadowed the good things to come" after the
resurrection. The existence which it gave in the land of promise during this
life was a shadow of the endless life to be enjoyed in the same land through
the Abrahamic covenant (Gen.21: 3). The Mosaic "commandment was ordained
to life" (Rom. 7:10) in the flesh, but it pointed to life in the spirit.
The most holy place of the tabernacle represented that life; for it was the
dwelling place of God ( Exod. 25: 22). The ark and mercy-seat (Heb. 9: 4-5)
symbolized Christ since his glorification, and the Cherubim "the sons of
God" in future spirit "manifestation" (Rom. 8: 19);
"Aaron's rod that budded" (Heb. 9:4 ) prefigured the resurrection;
and the manna, eternal life (Rev. 2: 17).
The chief offerings under the Mosiac law were
"the burnt offerings" (Lev. 1: 4),the "sin offering" (Lev.
4: 3). and the "peace offering" (Lev. 3: 1). The burnt offering"
was to he completely burned (Lev.1: 9) with the exception of the skin, which
was to be given to the priest (Lev. 8:8). The first time the people were
blessed after the completion of the Tabernacle "there came a fire out from
before the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the
fat" (Lev.9: 20); a representation of "the offering of the body of
Jesus Christ" (Heb. 10: 10) and of that event which is described as
"mortality" being "swallowed up of life" (2 Cor.5:1). The
swallowing up of mortality is the consuming of the "sinful flesh" of
the faithful and is accompanied by "this mortal" putting on
"immortality" (1 Cor.15:33); a consummation which takes place on the
perfect "altar," Christ Jesus (Heb.13:10). From this it follows that
the sons of Adam cannot be cleansed from "sinful flesh" without
blood-shedding, and that "the burnt offering" comprised
justification, in shadow, from the offense in Eden which produced "sinful
flesh." And the fact that the "burnt offering" was prescribed
for the dedication of the altar (Num. 8:15), proves that he of whom the altar
was a shadow, also required cleansing by blood-shedding. Every "burnt
offering" was to be accompanied by a "meat offering" (Num.
15:3-12), which, if baked, consisted of "unleavened cakes of fine flour
mingled with oil" (Lev.2:4) and seasoned with salt (ver. 13). The meat
offering foreshadowed the uncorrupt character of Christ an essential feature to
his being an acceptable "offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet
smelling savour" (Eph. 5:2). The "sin offering" was for sins of
ignorance (Lev. 4: 2); and, when for the priest or for the congregation, it was
to be burned "without the camp" (Lev. 4:12-21). "Wherefore. Jesus
also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without
the gate" (Heb. 13:12). Hence justification from individual sins is
necessary as well as justification from the "offense" of Adam; this
two-fold justification is provided for in the sacrifice of Christ. "His
own self bare our sins in his body on the tree" (I Pet.2:14). Be
"bare our sins" through being made of "sinful flesh" (Rom.
8:3; Heb. 2-14) and as sin in both forms physical and mora1, requires shedding
of blood, Christ's sacrifice is equally available, and equally needful, for
purification from "sin in the flesh" and from sin in word or deed.
The "peace offering" signified the removal of the alienation between
God and man arising from sin. This feature of the Mosaic law has its parallel
in Christ. Those who were once "far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ; for he is our peace" (Eph. 2:18-14). They who formerly "were
enemies" are "reconciled to God by the death of his son" (Rom.
5:10).the consecration of priests "a burnt offering" (Exod. 24:18) ,
"a sin offering" (ver. 14), and a "peace offering" (ver.
28) were each necessary to enable Aaron and his sons to officiate in the
tabernacle. In this they present a shadow of the "holy priesthood" in
Christ. who are consecrated "to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable
to God by Jesus Christ" (1 Pet.2:5). Reconciliation by the sacrifice of
substance must not only be higher in degree, but equally as comprehensive as
reconciliation by shadow-sacrifices. Aaron and his sons were by the above
offerings cleansed from both physical and moral defilement, and in like manner
believers are, at baptism into Christ, "justified by his blood"
('Rom. 5:9) from "sin in the flesh" as well as from their previous
"wicked works" (Col.1:21). This is necessary to make their
reconciliation "complete" After partaking of this favor they cannot
be alienated from God or suffer condemnation by His son except by their own
unfaithfulness. The need for blood-shedding to cleanse from physical, as well
as from moral, defilement is proved in a variety of ways. "An
atonement" was prescribed for the tabernacle and its contents (Lev. 16:
16, 20, 33), and at the dedication of the altar, burnt offerings, their
offerings, and peace offerings were required (Num.8:10, 15, 16, 17)
For this there is a reason; these things were
made out of "the ground," which on account of Adams offense, was
"cursed" (Gen. iii. 17). Moral guilt could not possibly attach to the
tabernacle and its contents; nevertheless they must be purged by blood before
they could be used as a means of approach to God. Could they whose nature
contained "sin" officiate as priests in an atoned-for tabernacle
without their defiled nature having partaken of a similar purgation? Impossible.
Hence "the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer
sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying
of the flesh" (Heb. ix. 13). What was it that required, and partook of,
this purifying? "Sin in-the-flesh;" for sin is the only thing that
defiles "the flesh," and blood-shedding is only required to purify
from the sin or its consequences. Was the purification of such efficacy as to
enable the "offerers" to obtain by it a
"perfect" nature? No; for then the sacrifices "would have ceased
to be offered" (Heb.10: 1-2). "The blood of bulls and of goats"
must be succeeded by the blood of Christ in order to give enduring efficacy to
the purification. What then was the immediate benefit? It took away, for the
time being, in respect to the purified ones, the alienation between themselves
and God arising from "sin-in-the-flesh"; and this enabled them to do
those things required by God for attainment to eternal life. Without such a
shadow-purification this would have been impossible, "the blood of
Christ" of less present efficacy than was "the blood. of bulls and of
goats?" According to Apostolic reasoning, quite the reverse:--"If the
blood of" animals was effective for "the purifying of the flesh, how
much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works, to
serve the living God?" (Heb.9: 13-14). The purging of the conscience is,
since the crucifixion, an essential preliminary for "serving the living
God." Is not the purifying of the flesh also essential? If requisite under
the law of shadows, can it be dispensed with under the law of Christ? And does
not the expression, "how much more," prove that "the blood of
Christ" purifies the flesh of believers at the same time that it purges
their "conscience from dead works?" is the present effect of purification
of the flesh through the blood of Christ? Not a change of nature, but a change
in the relationship of the flesh. By birth it is related only to Adam, sin and
death. Of itself it contains "no good thing" (Rom.2:18), and even
without originating any evil deed it is fit only to be consigned to corruption.
But when figuratively sprinkled by the blood of Christ it is the subject of a
justification, and thereby becomes "holy" "Know ye not that your
body is the temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor.6:19); "the temple of
God is holy, which temple ye are" (ch. 3: 17). Henceforth the fleshly body
is a fit dwelling place for God by His Spirit, either in the form of
"Spiritual gifts" or in the
form of the Truth, which is likewise "Spirit" (1Jno.5:6).
Can a body thus made holy, afterwards become
unholy? Yes If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy" (1
Cor. 3:17). How can it be defiled? Among other things, by "adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, drunkenness" (Gal. 5: 19-21). A "holy"
body is not allowed to become "one flesh" (1 Cor. 6: 16) with an
unholy body. It is on this basis that the marriage of baptized believers is
permitted "only in the Lord" (1 Cor.7:39) to marry out of the Lord is
to "defile the temple of God." the effect of the body being now made
holy? Does it prevent its going to corruption? No; but it prevents corruption
retaining a permanent hold of it for its original uncleanness. With what
result? That It must come forth from the grave. To be made incorruptible Not
necessarily It must undergo a scrutiny to decide whether, after being made
"holy," it has been so defiled as to deserve destruction (1
Cor.3:15). In such a case a "man" is destroyed, not for what he was,
by nature, but for what he did after his "body" was made
"holy;" "if ye LIVE after the flesh ye shall die" (Rom.
8:13). On what conditions can a "body" now made "holy"
ultimately; become incorruptible? BY compliance with that which is expressed in
the following injunction:-'Ye are bought with a price; therefore glorify God in
your body, and in your spirit, which are God's" (1 Cor. 6:20). This
involves crucifying "the flesh with the affections and lusts" (Gal.
5: 2~4). They who do this are described as sowing "to the spirit",
and the promise is, that they "shall of the spirit reap life
everlasting" (ch. 6:8)·
What is that curse In its finality, death.
Hence the law is styled "the ministration of condemnation" and the
"ministration of death" (2 Cor. 3:7-9). No Jew (except Jesus) kept
the law perfectly; therefore they all came under its curse. What was necessary
to deliver them therefrom? Sacrifice,
not in shadow, but in substance. This was provided in the death of Christ;
"he is the mediator of a new covenant, that a death having taken place for
the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, they
that have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance"
(Heb. 9: 1·5). How was the death of Christ brought to bear on them so as to
produce "the redemption" of their "transgressions?" Through
the shadow sacrifices of the law. If offered in a right state of mind they were
accepted as atonement for sin in view of the perfect sacrifice then to come;
"Whoso offereth the sacrifice of thanksgiving glorifieth me; and to him that ordereth
his conversation aright will I shew the salvation of God" (Pa 1. 23). When Christ had did and risen again
these shadow sacrifices were ratified by his shed blood, and faithful Jews
"sleeping in the dust" (Dan. 12: 2) were thereby placed in the same
position as faithful baptized Gentiles who "sleep in Jesus" (1
Thess.4: 14). Writing of Jews baptized into the death of Christ the Apostle
says, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Gal.3:
13). With what result? That all such Jews did not die under "the curse of
the law": according to the Apostolic promise they had received
"remission of sins" (Acts 2:38), and, as a consequence, they were
freed from the "condemnation" of the Mosaic law. Were they at the
same time freed from the condemnation" arising out of "the
offense" of Adam (Rom. 5:18)? Equally so they had been justified in shadow
by circumcision and animal sacrifice from inherited sin, and Christ's sacrifice
was as efficacious for the ratification thereof, as it was for ratifying
sacrifices offered for "transgressions" against the law. Therefore
baptized Jews were "redeemed" by the blood of Christ from Adamic
"condemnation" as well as from Mosaic "condemnation To free Jews
from "the curse of the law" it was necessary for Christ to be
"made a curse" (Gal.3:13), How was this effected? By his being nailed
to the cross; "for it is written, cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree'" (Gal.3:13). He could not
"destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil," or sin
(Heb 2:14), unless made of "the same flesh and blood" as his
brethren, which is "sinful flesh" (Rom. 8:3); and in like manner he
could not remove "the curse of the law" without himself coming under
that curse. How could this be effected without moral guilt? By the mode of his
death being constituted the basis for Mosaic "condemnation." He was
"made a curse" by God's providential arrangement. as he had
previously been "made sin" (2 Cor. 5: 21) by being "made of a
woman" (Gal. 4:4). On the false charge of "blasphemy" Jesus
Christ was condemned to a violent "death" (Matt. 16:65 66), as
prescribed in the law (Lev. 16:1·6). The Jewish mode of inflicting it was
stoning; but before Christ's first appearing the Jews had been deprived of the
power of inflicting death without the sanction of the Romans (Jno. 8:31); and
as the Roman method of putting criminals to death was by crucifixion, Christ,
when condemned was hung upon a tree. This brought him under "the curse of
the law;" and he could only be freed therefrom by his own shed blood. He
shed his blood, redeemed himself from the Mosaic "curse," and thereby
laid the foundation for the same "curse" being taken from such Jews,
whether dead or living, as have complied with God's sin-cleansing requirements.
Gentiles do not require redeeming from "the curse of the law" because
they were never under it; "what things soever the law saith, it saith to
them who are under the law" (Rom. 3:19)· Nevertheless the mode by which
that redemption was effected is of interest to them, because it illustrates the
way in which they can be redeemed from Adamic "'condemnation." Jews
were freed from Mosaic "condemnation" by baptism into Christ;
therefore Gentiles can, by the same baptism, be freed from Adamic
"condemnation" But is not Adamic "condemnation" solely
physical, inherent in sinful flesh? No; it has physical results, but in the
first instance it has reference to the Divine attitude towards the breach of
the Edemic law; it is another term for Divine disfavor. Physica1 decay is the
result of Divine "condemnation," but not identical with it. The
"condemnation" which "came upon all men by one man's
offense" (Rom. 5: 17-18) consists of the Divine decree, "Then shalt
surely die": "Unto dust shalt thou return" (Gen.2:17; 3:19). To
be redeemed from that "condemnation" is to deprive the death, which
it brought of its permanent power; not by preventing a temporary abode in the
grave, but by providing a basis on which justice can give release. It does not
however, exempt them from a return to the grave for unfaithfulness after being
redeemed from Adamic or Mosiac "condemnation," or both. In such cases
endless abode in the grave will be due to condemnation solely for their own
misconduct.
All Jews from Sinai to the Crucifixion were in
the Mosaic covenant, but they were not all in the Abrahamic. Entrance into both
covenants required justification by circumcision; but here the parallel ends.
Entrance into the Mosaic covenant arose out of fleshly descent. But to enter
the Abrahamic covenant a knowledge of
its purport, and faith in its fulfillment were necessary. These conditions were
not present in the minds of all Jews; "for they are not all Israel, which
are of Israel" (Rom. 9: 6). They who were merely "of Israel"
constituted "Israel after the flesh" (1 Cor. 10:. 18); but they who
were Jews "inwardly" (Rom. 2:29) are described as "the Israel of
God" (Gal. 6: 16). Fleshly Israel "attained not to the law of
righteousness ................. because they sought it not by faith, but as it
were by the works of the law" (Rom. 9: 31-321); they made the mistake of
thinking that shadow sacrifices could take away sin without ratification by a
perfect sacrifice. But godly Israel believed in the bruising of the seed of the
Serpent on the basis of the woman's seed being bruised. Of this class was
Simeon, who "waited for the consolation of Israel" (Luke 2:'25), and
who after being permitted to see "the Lord's Christ" (ver. 26), said,
"Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in
peace . for mine eyes have seen thy salvcation"
(ver. 29-30). All Israel were invited in a variety of ways, of which the
following is an illustration, to enter into the Abrahamic
covenant:-"Incline your ear and come unto me: hear and your soul shall
live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies
of David" (Isa. 55. 3). How did Jews enter? They "made a covenant
with God by .sacrifice" (Ps. 50: 5). Did all who made this covenant fulfil its terms to the end of their life? Far from it;
sometimes "the righteous turneth away from his righteousness and
committeth iniquity" (Ezek. 18:24). In such cases was their retribution
confined to "the curse of the law?" No; they must suffer the retribution
due for unfaithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant. When will that be? When
"the Mediator" of that covenant (Heb. 9: 15-28) returns to bring it
into operation. He wilt then ·declare who have paid their covenant "vows
unto the Most High" (Ps. 1. 14) and who have not. The former he "will
deliver" from "the day of trouble" (ver. 15); but the latter
"shall be destroyed together" (Ps. 37:38). Thus will "God bring
every work" connected with the Abrahamic covenant "into judgment,
with every secret thing whether it be good, or whether it be evil"
(Eccles. 12: 14); as He has already done
in regard to the Mosaic covenant (Heb. ii. 2). The Jews in the Mosaic covenant
who were also in the Abrahamic now "sleep in the dust of the earth;"
but they "shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and
everlasting contempt" (Dan. 12: 2). They will be raised, not because they
were in the Mosaic covenant, but because they were in the Abrahamic. The Mosaic
covenant could not give eternal life (Gal. 3:21) and all its transgressions
have already "received a just recompense" (Heb. 2: 2). Consequently
resurrection for its retributions is unnecessary. Not so with the Abrahamic
covenant; its rewards and retributions have yet to be bestowed. Hence the need
of resurrection.
Every Jewish child, by its birth, defiled its
mother. It could not have produced this result if it had not itself been
unclean (Lev. 12). From this defilement, the mother could not be cleansed
without "blood" (verse 4-5); and as blood is the antidote to sin. the
uncleanness must have been caused by sin. Whose sin? First, the
"offence" of Adam; and second, its consequence: vis.,
"sin in the flesh" of the child. The uncleanness was inherited and
therefore the blood of the lamb," "pigeon," or
"turtledove," denominated "a sin-offering" (Lev. 12: 6),
was a justification from inherited sin. The mother was, by "a man
child," made "unclean seven days" (verse 2); and on the
"eighth day" it was "circumcised" (verse 3). The mother was
then to "continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty
days" (verse 4). But for " a maid child" she was "unclean
two weeks," and was required to "continue in the-blood of her
purifying three score and six days" (verse 5). Thus circumcision in the
case of "the man child" diminished the uncleanness of the mother by
one-half, and was consequently a justification ceremony of the same efficacy as
that of a sin offering.
To this Mosaic enactment, the Son of Mary,
"made under the law" (Gal. 4: 4), was no exception. The expression
"that holy thing" (Luke 1: 35) applied to him before birth, is used
in the same sense as the word, "holy," in 1 Cor. 7: 14, to describe
legitimacy of origin and also to indicate that he was a "first born
son" (Luke 2:7), all of whom were "called holy to the Lord"
(Luke 2.: 23). .The holiness of first-born sons did not exempt them from
circumcision, nor prevent their mother from being defiled by them. Hence at
"eight days" of age the child Jesus was circumcised (Luke 2.: 21),
and subsequently his mother continued in "the days of her purification
according to the Law of Moses" (ver. 22). This was the first act of
justification of which Jesus partook. Its effect was to transfer him from the
state of "condemnation" to death, under which he was born, into the
condition described as being "alive" (Rom. 7:. 9). In that
"alive" condition he continued until the close of his career; for
when, on arriving at years of discretion, the commandment came," his
"sin in the flesh" did not "revive," and as a consequence
he did not "die." That is, he did not by his own act incur death, and
therefore he did not require to die symbolically in the death of a sacrificial
animal. As the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man (Heb. 8:
2), Jesus, like the Mosaic tabernacle, required "atonement" (Lev. 16:
33); for a like reason and for the same object. The reason was physical
defilement, and the object to provide a fit dwelling place for Jehovah. As
"the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle" (Exod. 40: 35), so
"the spirit" abode in Jesus Christ without "measure" (Jno.
3: 34). This was no doubt, one of the, perhaps the chief one for which
circumcision was instituted; that he who was made to "hope" from his
"mother's breasts," and was "cast upon" God "from the
womb" (Ps. 22: 9, 10), should have the benefit of a justification from
inherited sin from his earliest days. "Circumcision verily profiteth if
thou keep the law" (Rom. 2:.25). In what way did it profit? It could not
give eternal life; "for if there had been a law which could have given
life, verily righteousness should have been by the law" (Gal. 3:. 21).
What then was the profit? It spared from premature death, and maintained
uninterrupted reconciliation with God. Jesus Christ was the only Jew who thus
profited through keeping the law. Did he not die a premature death? Yes; but
how? In regard to the Mosaic law, by a voluntary surrender of his life.
Although he prayed to God, "take me not away in the midst of my days"
(Ps. 102:24), yet he made the announcement, "I lay down my life for the
sheep" (Jno. 10. 15). Up to the time immediately proceeding his being
nailed to the cross the Mosaic "ministration of condemnation" (2 Cor.
3. 9) had no hold upon him. But as soon as he was hung upon a tree he came:
under that "condemnation;" that is, he was "cursed" by the
law (Gal. 3: 13), and from that "curse" he could only be cleansed by
the shedding of his blood. At the same time and for the- same reason "the
true tabernacle" (Heb. 8:. 2) became unfit for the indwelling of Jehovah;
hence, the spirit left Jesus, and he cried out. "My God, My God, why hast
thou forsaken me?" (Matt. 28: 46). By "the curse of the law" his
circumcision was "made uncirrumcision"
(Rom. 2: 25); but by his death he underwent a higher form of circumcision;
"he was cut off out of the land of the living (Isa 53:8)
Although nailed to the tree by "wicked
hands" (Acts 2: 23) it was the result of providential arrangement;
"thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above" (Jno. 19: 11). Jesus Christ died
"the death of the cross" (Phil. 2: 8) but not in the same way as
others; he did not die simply through physical exhaustion. There was an element
in his case, which was, absent from that of the two thieves, viz., grief for
sin. This explains why he died before them (Jno. 19: 31-33). He died of a
"broken heart" (Ps. 69: 20); and hence when the soldier "pierced
his side, forthwith came there out blood and water" (Jno. 19: 34). His
heart had literally ruptured, and, the red and white portions of the blood had
become separated. The grief which produced this result is evidence of the
completeness with which Christ had, during his probation, practiced
"circumcision of the heart" (Rom. ii. 29), described as "circumcision
made without hands" (Col. ii. 11), which, if absent, would have rendered
the "circumcision" which ended his life of no avail (Rom. ii. 25) He
had "cut off" everything from his affections pertaining to
"sinful flesh," and this was consummated by a voluntary cutting off
of his life for justification from sin. The baptism of John was, like the
Mosaic Law, an addition to the Abrahamic covenant. It was instituted "for
the remission of sins" (Mark 1:. 4). To the surprise of John, Jesus
applied "to be baptized of him;" and, in answer to John's objection,
said, "Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all
righteousness" (Matt.3:13-15). Submission to this ceremony, was therefore
a necessary part of the "righteousness" of; Christ. For what
reason? as it a test of obedience
without doctrinal significance? If it was in his case, it was in the case of
others. But it was not in their case; for they "were baptized confessing
their sins" (Matt. 3: 6), and as a consequence they received
"remission of sins." Had Christ any sins requiring
"remission?" He had no personal transgressions, but He possessed
"sin in the flesh" inherited from .Adam; his submission to the
baptism of John was a practical confession of this fact, and a recognition of
the necessity of his death in order to be cleansed. Being a symbol of his
death, it was a justification, by shadow from the sin which required that
death. Had he not been thus justified by circumcision? He had; but inasmuch as
a shadow justification is not perfect it will bear repetition to any extent.
Previous to baptism by John, Jesus had been hidden from Israel; he was now
about to be revealed as the "beloved Son" with whom the Father was
"well pleased" (Matt. 3: 17). It was fitting, that before being
"manifested to take away our sins" (1 Jno. 3: 5), he should publicly
acknowledge his own relationship to sin, and also illustrate, symbolically, the
impossibility of escaping therefrom without his own death. The ceremony which
cleansed the Jews, who were "baptized of John in Jordan" (Matt. 3: 6)
from moral defilement, was equally efficacious in cleansing Jesus from his
physical defilement. In both cases it was temporary, until ratified by the
death of Christ as a sacrifice. The necessity for the justification of Jesus
Christ was foretold by the Psalmist when representing him as saying to Jehovah,
"in thy sight shall no man living be justified" (Ps. 143:2). To be
justified in God's sight is impossible for anyone inheriting the sin nature;
that nature must be covered by blood-shedding before a man can do anything
relating to a future life, acceptable to God. There is no disadvantage in this,
because God has made ample provision for inherited sin to be covered. In
instituting circumcision God placed the Jew in a position whereby, as soon as he
knew the Divine requirements, he could perform them. And in the analogous
ceremony of baptism He has given the Gentile the opportunity, as soon as he
knows what he has received from Adam and what he may obtain through Christ, of
becoming justified from inherited and committed sin.
"It is not possible that the blood of
bulls and of goats should take away sin" (Heb. 10: 4). Why not? Because
the animals sacrificed for sin were under no moral law, and contained no
"sin in the flesh." The absence of sin rendered its condemnation
impossible; it was placed on the heads of the animals representatively, and
therefore was only condemned representatively. How was it thus condemned? Not
by Divine word only; this was insufficient; it must also, be condemned by deed.
Sin was condemned representatively when the animal was slain. Why was it
slain? Because the man who offered it
deserved, on account of sin, to be slain. What does this indicate? That when
the shadow gave place to the substance the one in whom sin was condemned must
also be slain. Even though he possess "sin in the flesh" only, and
have no personal transgression? Yes. Why? Because his
"sin-in-the-flesh" was the result of the "offense" of Adam,
who deserved to be slain on "the day" he disobeyed. Does not this put
Christ in the position of a substitute? No; because Christ was a continuation,
as regards nature, of Adam; and "sin-in-the-flesh'' deserves the same
penalty as personal transgression. Adam did not suffer the violent death which
he incurred; but it was inflicted on the animals slain in Eden. 'Their death
was the result of the promise concerning the seed of the woman, and it
foreshadowed the bruising of that seed. Between the death of the substance and
the death of the shadow, there must be a parallel. Death by physical decay
would not have sufficed for the shadow; and therefore it would not have been
effective in the substance. Why not Because the condemnation of sin, whether by
representation or in reality, is the execution of the penalty threatened for,
and incurred by disobedience. If. therefore, the penalty embodied in the Edenic
law was death by physical decay, such a death would have sufficed both for the
shadow and the substance. But it did not; consequently the penalty due to Adam
was death by slaying. And as all his descendants "sinned" in him
(Rom. v 12), they deserve, whether actual transgressors or not, a violent death
in the execution of the Edenic law. The reason why such a death is not
universal is due to the mercy of God, expressed in the Edenic promise. That
promise involves the existence of the seed of the Serpent until the time
arrives for the conflict between the seed of the Woman and the seed of the
Serpent to come to an end. But although the bulk of the human race are allowed
to pass away through death by physical decay, such a mode of death will not
suffice for the taking away of Edenic, and other sin. God gave to Adam a law,
and that law must be carried out in one of two ways. If Adam had obeyed, he would
have fulfilled the righteousness of God, and would have experienced the
blessing implied in the law by not dying; but having disobeyed, the penalty of
the law must be inflicted. If it had been carried out on Adam there would have
been no human race, and, as a consequence no sinners to save. But God, in His
mercy, "that he might make known the riches of his glory" (Rom. 9:
23) provided a descendant of Adam on whom to execute the penalty; and, in
"the depth of" his "wisdom" (Rom. 11: 33),he devised a plan
whereby submission to the penalty should constitute a part of "his
righteousness," and thus enable Him to "be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus" (Rom. 3:2-6). Without setting aside the
Edenic law God has carried His decree into execution in such a way as to ensure
for a great multitude the endless life which Adam lost by violating that law.
He has provided one who combined in his own person Adam after condemnation and
the substance of the Edenic shadow-sacrifice, and who yet was morally
"innocent from the great transgression" (Ps. 19: 13) committed by the
first man. According to custom, Jesus Christ was crucified naked, as indicated
by the fact that "many women were there beholding afar off" (Matt.
28:55). This feature possesses a doctrinal significance, which is referred to
in the statement that "for the joy that was set before him" he
"endured the cross, despising the shame" (Heb. 12: 2). He was then in
the condition of Adam and his wife after partaking of the forbidden tree and
before being "clothed" with "coats of skins" (Gen. 3: 21);
they realized through sin "that they were naked" (Gen. 3: 7), and as
a consequence experienced "shame." The "sin-in-the-flesh"
transmitted by them has the same effect, and hence Christ partook of it. Having
lost through "the curse of the law" the covering for sin provided by
circumcision and baptism. he was now, in relation to the Edenic and Mosaic
laws, in an unjustified condition; he was physically as unclean as he was
between birth and circumcision; and the nakedness apparent to the human eye was
a counterpart of his nakedness in the sight of God. Although he possessed a
record of a blameless life, he could derive no benefit therefrom until his
naked condition had been covered by the shedding of his blood.
Knowing the painful and shameful death he had
to endure-for Jesus predicted that "the chief priests" would
"deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify"
(Matt. 20: 19)--is it a matter for surprise that as it drew near, he should in
his "agony" "sweat as it were great drops of blood" (Luke
22: 44), and pray, "O my Father, If it "be possible, let this cup
pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt" (Matt. 26:
39)? His exquisitely formed constitution caused him to shrink from the ordeal
by which sin was to be "condemned;" but his perfect understanding of
his Father's revealed will led him to suppress or crucify his natural dislike
and to submit to the execution of a
Divine law which, as proved by events, it was not "possible"
to set aside. Was this because God
required to be appeased? Not in the
sense in which the term is ordinarily used; no amount of zeal. effort or
self-sacrifice will take away His anger against sin apart from compliance with
God's "way" of righteousness. That "way" originated in the
declaration that the seed of the woman should be bruised in the heel by the
seed of the Serpent (Gen.3: l5) and it took: practical shape when the Lord God
provided sacrifice in Eden to effect reconciliation with the first sinners.
This is the only principle on which man can "make peace with God” (Rom. V5: 1)
As it was God's prerogative to provide the first shadow-sacrifice, so does it belong to Him alone to give the
sacrifice of substance. Hence He
"hath set forth" Christ Jesus "to be a propitiation" (Rom. 3: 25). In that capacity Jesus
"abolished in his flesh the enmity" caused by sin "that he might
reconcile both" Jew and Gentile "unto God in one body by the cross
having slain the enmity thereby" (Eph. 2: 15-16). God "loved" sinners (Eph. 2: 4),
and in a higher sense He
"loved" his righteous son (Jno. 25: 9); likewise the son
"loved" sinners (Gal. 2: 20),and manifested perfect "love"
for "the Father" (Jno. 15: 31,. Notwithstanding this comprehensive
love, it could not produce any practical
benefit without the physical condemnation of sin. The exercise of God's love is
regulated and limited by His other attributes. His law having been violated His
justice and righteousness required the vindication of that law to enable Him to
give effect to His mercy and love. Hence the need for Christ to suffer the full
penalty of the Edenic law before he could reap the reward of an obedient life.
Though free from personal transgression, he submitted to that which was the inevitable
result of the Father's anger against sin, physically and morally; thereby
exhibiting the perfection of righteousness. After passing through the ordeal he
was able to say from experience, the Lord's "anger endureth but a moment;
in his favour is life; weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the
morning" (Ps. 30:5). The death of
Christ was the combined expression of Divine wrath, Divine justice, and Divine
love; wrath against sin, justice in the execution of the Edenic and Mosaic
laws, and love in opening up a way to immortality. The Divine wrath was buried
in the grave with Christ and as regards his own relationship to the Edenic and
Mosaic condemnations, it remained there. This enabled Divine justice to raise Christ from the dead
and give him immortality--the conditions imposed upon him having been
fulfilled On this basis Divine love has
offered the same blessing to others who by reason of their own wicked deeds,
are incapacitated from filling the
position which Christ occupied.
In the conflict between opponents and
defenders of Christianity Christ's resurrection has been discussed solely as a
miracle. From a, physical point of
view, it was a miracle; but from a moral standpoint it was more than a miracle.
It was the fulfillment of a promise--the carrying into effect of a righteous
law. God had, in effect, said to His Son "If thou wilt walk in my ways,
and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt" (Zech. 3: 7) be
delivered from death and be satisfied with "my salvation" (Ps.
91:14-16). His Son fulfilled these
conditions; therefore it was a manifestation of Divine faithfulness to raise
Jesus Christ from the dead, and give him" length of days forever and
forever" (Ps. 21:. 1). He was "obedient unto death, even the death of
the Cross; wherefore (God also hath highly exalted him" (Phil. 2: 8-9). By
obedience to "the death of the Cross,"he
had atoned for Adamic and Mosaic "condemnation," and having done
nothing by his own action to bring himself under the power of death "it
was not possible that he should be holden of it" (Acts 2: 24)~ He died
according to law, and he was released from death according" to law. It was
not possible, according to the "law of sin and death," for Christ to
be freed from Adamic "condemnation" without shedding his blood; and
after this event "it was not possible", according to "the law of
the Spirit of life," for the grave to retain him. He had, by his shed
blood, nullified that which causes death; therefore he was "brought again
from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20)
i· e., the covenant made with Abraham.
But was he not raised in order that he might receive eternal life? This
was the object; but there was also a cause; and between cause and object there
is a distinction. He would have had no title to eternal life if he had not
"put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Heb. 9:. 26); and without
a title to eternal life he could not have been "brought again from the
dead." Between his corruptible body in the grave and the enjoyment of
incorruptibility, there were two physical processes to pass through; 1st
restoration to a flesh and blood nature; second transformation into spirit
nature. The former would not have taken place without the latter; and the
latter could not be realized without the former. Between the two processes,
Christ was free from condemnation for sin as Adam was before eating the
forbidden fruit. "He that hath died is justified from sin" (Rom. 6:.
7); consequently death could exercise "no more dominion over him"
(ver 9)· He could, at this stage, say, "I restored that which I took not
away" (Ps. 69: 4). But he differed from Adam, in that he had been tested
by most severe temptation "in all points" (Heb. 4: 15,), and had
resisted. He had "loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God
anointed him with the oil of gladness" (Heb. 1: 9). Having been
"brought again from the dead through the blood of the everlasting
covenant." he now by own blood, entered into the holy place (Heb. 9:. 12).
These two Processes though attributable to the same cause are quite distinct,
when he came out of the grave he was "justified from sin" though
still flesh and blood; and he was immortalized as the result of that
justification.
Believing Gentiles, like Abraham, cannot be
justified without sacrifice. Hence the Apostolic argument on Abraham's faith
concludes' with the declaration that Christ "was delivered for our
offenses and was raised again for our justification" (Rom. 4: 25). From
this fact the Apostle draws a conclusion: -'Therefore being justified by faith
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (ch. 5: I). And
subsequently he uses the expression, "Being now justified by his
blood" (ver. 9). The reference to Christ's "blood" shows that
the justification took place at a specific time. When was that? When the Roman
believers were brought into contact with Christ's blood by baptism into his
death (Rom.6: 4). From what did they need justification? From the
"condemnation" arising out of "the offense of one" (Rom. 5:
18), and from "those things" they had committed as "servants of
sin" (Rom. 6:. 20-21). Justification and condemnation are related to each other
in the same way as light and darkness; they cannot exist, in the same sense,
and in respect to the same persons, at the same time. Neither can a man be
justified from his own "wicked works" (Co. 1: 21) without being at
the same time justified from the wicked action of Adam: for if he were, his
justification would be vitally defective; and inasmuch as he is never by any
other ceremony brought into contact with Christ's blood, he would always remain
unjustified from Adams ''offense," and as a consequence, would be forever
"reigned" over by the "death" which is brought (Rom. 5:.
17).. Christ having been "raised again for our justification it
necessarily follows that a believer when raised out of the baptismal water
symbolizing Christ's death, partakes of his justification. Christ was, by his
shed blood, justified from the condemnation under which he was born: therefore
those who are sprinkled with his blood (I. Pet. 1: 2) at baptism, are then
justified from the same condemnation. That is, the Divine disfavour
under which were born and which continued until the time of entering the water,
is then taken away. Hence all the passages in the New Testament which refer to
the state of "grace" or favour into which brethren of Christ have
been introduced, imply that they are no longer under the Divine disfavour arising out of Adam's offense. In writing to the
first century ecclesias the Apostles reminded believers of the favour which had
been bestowed upon them in respect to physical as well as actual sin:-'Our old
man was crucified with him" (Rom. 6: 6); "his own self bare our sins
in his own body on the tree" (I Pet. 2:. 24); "you, being dead in
your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened" (Col.
2:13:). ? Moses "sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle, and all the
vessels of the ministry," and it was "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. 9:21-.23). "Our
old man" is sinful flesh, and as Christ by his death was justified
therefrom it necessarily follows that those who are crucified with him"
participate in justification from the same When Christ "bare our sins in
his own body" he did not bare actual transgressions, but through the
possession of "sin-in-the-flesh" he bare the "offense" of
Adam, and by justification from "one man's offense" the foundation
was laid for justification from many offenses" (Rom. 5:. 16). Those
"offenses" and "sin-in-the flesh" are both the result of
"the offense of one'" therefore when Justification from the "one
offense" takes place it is necessarily accompanied by justification from
the inherited and individual sin of which it is the origin. The
"dead" condition which precedes the quickening at baptism, arises
from personal "sins and the uncircumcision of our flesh" (Col. 2: 13
); if either of these causes of death remain unjustified, there can be no
quickening; therefore the ceremony which justifies from the one justifies from
the other. To all in Christ it is said,
"ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified" (I Cor. 6: 11).
From what are they washed? Like Saul, from their previous misdeeds
:--"Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins (Acts 22: 16)· From whom are they sanctified
or separated? From all who, are still "sinners" in Adam (Rom. 5. 19).
And from what are they justified? From the "offense" of Adam (Rom. 5:
18). The "offense" of Adam is no longer, as it once was, imputed to
them; the possession of ' 'sinful flesh" is not any more a cause of Divine
disfavour; and if they walk after the spirit"
(Rom. 8:4) they cannot be condemned by Christ (ver. 34). Justification from "sinful flesh"
is not accompanied by its destruction; if it were, there could not be a
probation; but its destruction is ensured if the justification be maintained.
By what can it be suspended or terminated? Not by the sins committed before
baptism; nor by the "offense" of Adam; but solely by sins committed
after baptism. When once sins are forgiven through the blood of Christ, they
are never again the subject of condemnation; and when once the blood of Christ
has given justification from the "offense" of Adam, it cannot be
re-imposed. "Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.
Who Is he that condemneth? Is it Christ that died,
yea rather, that is risen again'" (Rom. 8:35-34). Neither; but a like
condemnation will result from the commission of similar sins if not forgiven.
"Sin is the transgression of the law" (I Jno. 3: 4), and by that law
it is condemned. This is legal condemnation; physical condemnation is the
execution of the law. The "transgression" of Adam was, in Eden, the
subject of legal condemnation; and it was the subject of physical condemnation
when "sin-in-the-flesh" was "condemned" on the cross (Rom.
8:. 3), but in circumstances which ensured its removal . When believers are baptized into the death of
Christ they partake, by a symbol of the condemnation inflicted on him, and of
the justification which immediately followed. What is the effect of this? That they are freed from
"condemnation" for the "offense" of Adam, in its legal
aspect. This is the meaning of the Apostolic statement that' "there is
therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:
1). The remaining clause of this verse, "who walk not after the flesh, but
after the spirit" is omitted from the ·Revised Version, because not found
in the Sinaitic and Alexandrian manuscripts. This
omission is in harmony with the Apostolic argument; for after making the
statement Paul gives his reason, and the essence of that reason is, that God
"condemned sin-in-the-flesh" of his own Son. The nature of the
condemnation which Christ underwent defines the condemnation from which his
brethren are now free; it is the condemnation existing prior to baptism, viz.,
"condemnation" for "the offense" of Adam (Rom. 5.: 18).
They who were "made sinners by one man's disobedience" are then
"made righteous by the obedience of one" (ver. 19). . Previously the
offense of Adam was imputed to them. but now through their faith, Christ's shed
blood, and the water of baptism, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to
them.
This law is founded upon, and, indeed,
embodied in, the Edenic promise; it is the antithesis of "the law of sin
and death," embodied in the Edenic commandment. These two laws operate at
the same time, but not over the same area. All
the human race are under "the law of sin and death," but only
a limited portion come under "the law of the Spirit of life."
"The end" of those who remain under the first law is to
"perish" (Jno. 3:. 16); but "the end" or those who come
under the second law, and depart not from its requirements, is
"everlasting life" (Rom. 6: 22). For four thousand years "the
law of the Spirit of life" was identical with the Name of Salvation, (Prov. 18: 10), but when that
"name" was "given" to God's beloved Son (Phil. 2: 9), it
was embodied in him and became "the law of the Spirit of life-in Christ
Jesus." Hence each one who is "baptized in the name of Jesus
Christ" (Acts 2: 38) can say with the Apostle "The law of the Spirit
of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death"
(Rom. 8: 2). With what effect? That all such cannot, either for the "one
offense"" of Adam, or for the "many offenses" (Rom. 5:. 16)
committed under "the law of sin and death," perish. Does this ensure
their entrance into "everlasting life"? Only by continued conformity
with the requirements of "the law of the Spirit of life." If in this
they fail, they will "perish;" not through the operation of the law
under which they were born--from which they were once "made free" but
for violating the law under which they were placed by Divine favour. "The
law of sin and death" contains no provision for justification from sin,
and consequently no element, which counteracts the reign of death. All under
it, are by birth, "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3);as long as they
continue under it they are "dead in trespasses and sins" (ver. I);
everything they do is the offspring of sin, and is itself sin, for "the
plowing of the wicked is sin" (Prov. 21: ·I); God is angry with them
"every day" (Ps. 7: 11); and if they died while under "the law
of sin and death." they die under the wrath of God, from which there is no
escape. "The law of the Spirit of life" is the only law which
provides for justification from sin and consequently the only law which
counteracts the reign of death. Only those therefore, who come under the
operation of this law can escape the permanent reign of death. Does it prevent
them from going into the death-state? No; but it provides for their
resuscitation, and this places them in precisely the same position as they were
before dying. Why do they die? As a consequence of "the law of sin and
death," but not under its unrestricted operation; having been "made
free" from that law it cannot retain its hold upon them; they must rise.
Is their death a necessity? No; otherwise the last generation of those under
"the law of the Spirit of life" could not escape going into the
grave. If, as taught by the Apostacy, the place of reward had always been
ready, and there had been a continuous judgment-seat, the faithful would never
enter the grave, and the unfaithful would not die until condemned by the Judge.
But inasmuch as the place of reward is net fully prepared, as the time of the
judgment has not arrived, and as the faithful are to be all "glorified
together" (Rom. 8: 17), they who come under "the law of the Spirit of
life" and live not till its administrator arrives, simply "fall
asleep in Christ" (1 Cor. 15:. 18), to await the day of adjudication. The
justification from sin provided for by "the law of the Spirit of
life" is due to the fact that God "condemned sin in the flesh"
of "his own son" (Rom. 8: 3). The sacrificial death of a righteous
one is the basis on which "the law of the Spirit of life" frees men
from "the law of sin and death" and brings out of the grave those who
pass from the operation of the one law to the operation of the other law. It is
owing to "the grace of God" (Rom. 5:. 15) that such a sacrifice was
provided, and therefore it is through "the grace of God" that any are
allowed to come under the operation of "the law of the Spirit of
life." But having once partaken of the "grace" they are under an
obligation to which they were formerly strangers; they are henceforth required
to "continue in the grace of God" (Acts. 13: 43) and to "grow in
grace" (2 Pet 3: 18). If this be not done they "receive the grace of
God in vain" (2 Cor. 6: 12,and incur the retribution arising, not out of
"the law of sin and death," but out of "the law of the Spirit of
life." When God makes a law, whether as the result of His wisdom (Rev. 8:
29-31), His grace (Rom. 5: 17), or "because of transgressions" (Gal.
3: 19), its enactment’s must be carried out; but only on those who are related
to it. "What things soever the (Mosaic) law saith, it saith to them who
are under the law" (Rom.3: 19). No Gentile unincorporated into Israel by
circumcision could approach God by shadow, sacrifices and the Aaronic
priesthood; the privileges and retribution of the Mosaic law were confined to
the nation which, by blood-shedding, was just in shadow from the
"offense" of Adam. In like manner the privileges and retribution of
"the law of the Spirit of life" are confined to those who, by
sacrifice, come under its operation. Consequently the tribunal which dispenses
the reward and punishment pertaining to that law has no jurisdiction over those
who have never been freed from "the law of sin and death." "The
law of sin and death" admits only of a life under condemnation, liable to
be cut short at any moment. But the Mosaic law offered long life free from
disease, after a shadow-justification from Adamic condemnation; and yet its
retributions were confined to this life and were consummated in the grave. What
does this teach? That as the punishments due to those under the Mosaic Law are
past, not future, so the punishments doe to any under "the law of sin and
death" are concluded when that law consigns them to the grave. Is there
any obstacle to their being brought forth for future punishment" 'Yes.
What is it? Precisely the same obstacle which precludes any others from, being
brought forth to a future probation. What is that? The fact that while living they
were not justified from the "offense" of Adam and their own
"wicked works," and that consequently when they died they were
consigned by "the law of sin and death" to the endless "power of
the grave" (. Psa 49, 15-16). Cannot the anger of God against unjustified
sinners set aside "the law of sin and death"? This question may be
answered by asking another. Can the love of God set aside that law? This may be
tested by the ordeal which Christ had to
pass through. Speaking of the Mosaic law, he said, "Till heaven and earth
pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be
fulfilled" (Matt. 5: 18). Having been "made under the law" (Gal.
4:. 4), and having been also "made a curse" under that law (Gal. 3:
13), he could not be redeemed therefrom without a violent death. And: on the
same principle, having been "made of a woman" (Gal. 4: 4) descended
from Adam, he could not be freed from the Edenic law without a violent death.
He shrank from such a cup of bitterness, and prayed "earnestly" (Luke
22: 41) no less than three times (Matt. 26:. 44) that "if it be
possible" God would spare him from it (ver. 39). But God's fidelity to
"the law of sin and death" and to "the law of the Spirit of
life" prevented compliance with the request. His love for Jesus Christ was
greater than that which He has had for any member of the race, and yet He could
not, even on this ground, be unfaithful to His own word by setting aside His
own laws. Therefore He "spared not His own Son. but delivered him up for
us all" (Rom. 8: 32). Divine anger is not more powerful than Divine love;
that which the latter was unable to accomplish, the former is powerless to
effect. God having decreed that all who remain under "the law of sin and
death" shall, for the sin pertaining to that law, "perish," it
necessarily follows that when they pass into the grave that law has taken
effect on them, and that not having been freed from that law, they must, in the
grave, remain forever.
When does this take place? At baptism. In
what sense do believers then pass out of Adam? In the same sense that they pass
into Christ. Is it accompanied by any physical change No; the change is one of
relationship; Adam ceases to be the ;federal head of baptized believers, and
Christ takes his place. What is the immediate effect of this? That the
righteousness of Christ is imputed to them instead of the
"disobedience" of Adam; whereby they cease to be accounted
"dead" (2 Cor. 5:. 14) and are made "heirs according to the hope
of eternal life" (Titus 3: 7). What is the effect in relation to the
future? That death, as the result of Adam's "disobedience" cannot
prevail over them. "By man came death" (1 Cor. 15:21). How?
"Through the offense of one" (Rom. 5.: 15). When, therefore, the
relationship of any toward that "offense" is altered their
relationship towards its consequence is altered. In what way? By keeping them
from entering the grave" Not necessarily; but, should they enter, by
bringing them out. "By man came also resurrection of the dead" (1
Cor. 15: 21). How? By "dying unto
sin" (Rom. 6:. 10) at the close of an obedient life To whom does "the
resurrection" apply? To those who have "made a covenant with God by
sacrifice" (Ps. 50: 5), which Includes all who have been "buried with
Christ by baptism into death" (Rom. 6:. 4). It is of such that Christ
refers when he says, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against my
church" (Matt. 16:. 18). The "church," ecclesia or called out
assembly, is composed, not only of the "few chosen," but of the
"many called" (Matt. 20: 16). "Against" none of these will
"the gates of hades prevail;" for Christ will use "the keys of
hades" (Rev. 1:. 18) to release them from the grave, because, as "the
church of God he hath purchased" them "with his own blood" (Acts
20: 28). But against those who, since the establishment of his
"church," have not entered therein "the gates of hades"
will prevail. Christ's resurrection was the result of justification from
inherited sin, and the resurrection of his "church" is the result of
justification from inherited sin and individual "wicked works" (Col.
1: 21), whether its members are subsequently faithful or unfaithful. But, did
not the resurrection of Christ include immortalization? It was followed by the
bestowal of immortality, but the two events were quite distinct. The principle
which precludes his being clean when born of an unclean woman applies to his
coming forth from the grave. Corruption cannot beget incorruption. The immortal
"house not made with hands" comes, not from the earth, but "from
heaven" (2 Cor.5:. 1-2). The faithful exist as "corruptible,"
not corruption, when they "put on incorruption" (1 Cor. 15. 53): and
therefore Christ as their "forerunner" must have occupied an
analogous position. The distinction between resurrection and immortalization is
shown by Christ's declaration, "I am the resurrection and the life"
(Jno. 11: 25). To make the word "resurrection" here to mean
immortalization, would reduce the passage to an absurdity; it would represent
Christ as saying, "I am the immortality and the immortality." Christ
is "the resurrection" to all who enter the Name of Salvation, the
"many called" who constitute his "church," but he will be
"the life" only to the "few chosen" who keep God's word
(Rev. 3: 10). "In Adam all die" (1 Cor. 15:. 22). Who are they? Those who have not been transferred out of
Adam into Christ. Does it not also apply to those in Christ? No; because when
they entered Christ, they passed out of Adam; that is to say, they ceased to be
"sinners" in Adam, and were "made righteous" in Christ
(Rom. 5:19). They were then "born from above") (Jno. 3: 3), and
became "Sons of God" (1Jno. 3:1) Although, therefore they die as the
result of Adam's sin they do not die in .4dam; if they did, they would become
dead in Adam; they would, in that case have died "in their sins," and
as a consequence would have "perished" (1 Cor. 15:. 17 18). But
having been "washed" and "justified" (1 Cor. 6:. 11) from
their sins in Adam, they die in Christ, and hence, while in the grave are
"dead in Christ" (1 Thess. 4:.16); and because Christ rose, they will
rise. He rose "through the blood of the covenant," and they will rise
through the same:--"By the blood of thy covenant I have rent forth thy
prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water" (Zech. 9: 11)."In
Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. 15: 22). Is this "all"
identical with the "all" who die in Adam? No; it is a totally
different class. The statement is a contrast, in regard, not only to Adam and
Christ, but also to those who are respectively in these two federal heads. The
one brings death, and the other brings from death. Does not "made
alive" mean immortalize? No; it is synonymous with "resurrection from
the dead" in the preceding verse. But is not the word
"resurrection" used for immortalize? Not as a rule; only as an
exception such as Phil.3:10.it not have the exceptional meaning in the passage
under consideration' No; because that meaning is not the point in dispute. The
Apostolic argument arises out of the denial by some, of the "resurrection
of the dead" (1 Cor. 15:. 12). What was denied? The restoration of the
dead to life; and it was to refute this, that Apostle wrote what immediately
follows. His argument on this point continues until the end of verse 22, and
then he passes from reasoning to affirmation. To say that the term
"resurrection" in verse 21 means immortalize is to represent the
Apostle as not dealing with the specific point in dispute viz., whether or not
the dead could and would be brought to life.
Writing to "Sons of God" (1 ,Jno.3:
1) in the first century, the Apostle says, "If we walk in the light the
blood of Jesus Christ, his son, cleanseth from all sin" (1 Jno. 1`: 7). To
"walk in the light" is to conform to the Truth in its doctrinal and
practical aspects. On this depends cleansing from sin. What sin? Sin committed
after baptism. In what way? By confession there-of; "if we confess our
sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from
all unrighteousness." To whom must the confession be made? To God .
Through whom? Through Christ in
his capacity as a "high priest" (Heb. 4::15). On that basis is the
forgiveness granted? On the fact that Christ "put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself" (Heb. 9: 26); sins committed after baptism are forgiven
through his shed blood. . Are they forgiven without such confession? No; the
condition is "if we confess our sins." To omit such confession is one
way in which to "walk in darkness," and they who do this are excluded
from sin cleansing. Confession of sins committed during probation is equivalent
to baptism for purification from the "wicked works" (Col. 1: 21)
preceding probation; it occupies the same position in the present dispensation
as the offering of an animal sacrifice, prior to the Crucifixion. It is true
that Jesus Christ "offered one sacrifice for sins forever" (Heb. 10:.
12), but that sacrifice is of no avail unless applied individually in the
appointed way. It will not cleanse from "wicked works," committed
during a state of darkness, without "baptism into" that sacrificial
"death," (Rom. 6:. 4); and neither will it cleanse from sins
committed after baptism without being made use of by confession, through
Christ. Would confession cleanse from "wicked works" while in a state
of darkness? No; because in that
:condition there is no high
priest to present the confession; and furthermore, such confession would be
futile, because not preceded by justification from the "offense" of
Adam. A recognition of the "condemnation" Pronounced 'upon all
men" for "one man's disobedience" (Rom 5: 18-19), and conformity to God's method of
justification therefrom, is an indispensable preliminary to "fellowship
with him" (1 Jno. 1: 6). The "offense" of Adam, having produced
a breach between God and all men, that breach must individually be healed
before a probation for eternal life can commence. By the healing of the breach
they who "were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ;" they
can say "he is our peace" (Eph. 2: 13-14), and "We have peace
with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:.1). Does walking in the
light justify from the "offense" of Adam? No justification from
"one man’s offense" is as much a "free gift" as is
justification from the "many offenses" of those who "put on
Christ" by baptism (Gal.3: 27). Is not this justification conditional-
that is, dependent on conformity with subsequent conditions? No; it is complete
in its legal aspect when a believer rises -out of the baptismal water; and if
he maintain that justified state by walking in the light to the end of his
probation, bestowal of immortality is a certainty. Is not; this equivalent to
saying that the justification at baptism is provisional? No; because
probationary unfaithfulness cannot re-impose the condemnation for "one
man's offense" or for the "many offenses" preceding baptism; but
it can, and will, bring a new and individual condemnation. The unfaithful will
be condemned at the Day of Judgment solely for their own conduct. The
"peace with God" which results from justification at baptism is
provisional, because liable to be interrupted or terminated by subsequent sins;
but the justification which is the foundation for that "peace" is not
provisional; it is as regards the offenses to which it applies, complete.
"Ye are compete in Him" (i e. Christ, Col.
2: 10).
When Jesus Christ said, "I am the
Resurrection and the Life" (Jno.11:25), he announced in effect that
resurrection and immortality come only through him. He is the giver of eternal
life as the result of his own "obedience;" for thereby "he
became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him" (Heb.
5:. 8-9). His "obedience" was completed by "the death of the
Cross" (Phil. 2:. 8); therefore his position as a life-giver is based on
his sacrificial death. But he cannot give life to those who are dead unless
they are previously raised from the dead, Consequently it is necessary for him
to be "the Resurrection" in order to fulfill his position as
"the Life." On what basis has he been appointed "the
Resurrection"? Is it not the same as that on which he has been appointed
"the Life," viz., "obedience unto death" (Phil. 2: 8)? This
is obvious. On what basis, then, does he exercise the power pertaining to this
two-fold appointment? He bestows "the Life" on those only who
"have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the
Lamb" (Rev. 7: 14). The greater portion of these are dead; on what principle
are they raised? Because of their
relationship to Christ. How is that
described' As "Lord both of the dead and living." It was "to
this end," that is, to attain this position, that "Christ both died,
and rose and revived" (Rom. 15: 9). Who are "the dead and
living" 0f whom he is "Lord"? Those who are in the position to
"live unto the Lord," or to "die unto the Lord'' (ver. 8). How
do they attain to that position? In the same way as the Roman believers, viz "by being into his death" (Rom. 6: 3). Only
such can say" We are the Lord's" (Rom. 14:. 8); and therefore only of
such is Christ "the Lord." Does this apply to baptized believers
whether they prove faithful or unfaithful? Yes; for even if they go to the
length of "denying the Lord" it does not nullify the fact that he had
previously "bought them" (2 Pet. 2: 1). No amount of unfaithfulness
can set aside the fact that at baptism they were "bought with a
price" (1 Cor. 6: 20),even with "the precious blood of Christ"
(1 Pet. 1: 19). It is on this ground that he raises those who are his, in order
that he may test whether they have "lived unto themselves" or
"unto him which died for them and rose again''(2 Cor. 5:15). Do these testimonies imply that Christ is
not "the Lord" of any of the dead, who have not been
"bought" by his blood? Certainly; and, as a consequence, that he will
not raise any of them. Would not this exclude those who lived previous to the
Crucifixion? No; for those who had been introduced into "the Name"
(Phil. 2) of Salvation, were given to him when that "name" was
"given him." To these he refers when he says, "This is the
Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day" (Jno.6: 39).
All of the dead have not been "given" to Christ; otherwise he would
"raise" them; and that would involve universal resurrection. But all
who have been "given" to him he will raise; and he will, raise them
on the same principle that he was raised, viz., "through the blood of the
everlasting covenant" (Heb.13:. 20).
The prediction that the faithfu1 who "are
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord" (I Thess. 4:15) will never
"sleep in the dust of the earth" is something more than a matter of
interest; it presents a problem, the solution of which exhibits a doctrinal
truth. The problem is this; how can brethren of Christ pass from this life to
the next wthout entering the grave? Are they treated
on a principle different from that which is applied to their brethren who go
into the grave? Is death necessary for salvation in the one case and not in the
other? If it is, there are two ways of
salvation, not one. The "dead in Christ" and the "alive" in
Christ were both born under condemnation for Adam's "offense." How is
it taken away in each case? Do the "dead in Christ," by sleeping in
the dust, purge themselves from that "condemnation"? If so, the
"alive" in Christ require to be purged in the same way; but, inasmuch
as they never "sleep in Jesus," it is obvious that such a
"sleep" is not for them a necessity, and ii not necessary for them it
cannot accomplish anything for the "dead in Christ." The only death
which can take away condemnation in Adam is the death of Christ; every other
death is powerless for this purpose. And to represent an abode in the grave as
contributing towards the removal of Adam's condemnation, is to rob Christ of an
important portion of the work He has acomplished. The
penalty due to sin is a violent death, and therefore the taking away of sin
requires a violent death. Moreover, it must be a violent death inflicted by God
on one who is himself perfectly righteous; and these conditions can only be
found in the person of Christ. Some of the "dead in Christ" have died
a violent death, but they were not free from personal transgression, and
therefore their death was of no avail as a sacrifice for sin. The bulk of the
"dead in Christ" have died by physical decay; but such a death could
avail them nothing, and in addition to this, not one of them was perfectly
righteous. There is no death since the introduction of sin which can take sway
"the offense of one" and the "many offenses" of others
(Rom. 5:. 15-16), but "the death of the Cross ."the brethren of
Christ "alive" at His appearing are conveyed to the Judgment-seat
their probation is at an end; Christ has ceased to be their high-priest and
becomes their judge. It will then be said of them, "He that is unjust let
him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he
that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be
holy still (Rev. 22: 11). At this stage there will be "no more sacrifice
for sins': (Heb. 10:. 26) for either class. The righteous will not require it;
for, having "walked in the light" during probation they confessed
their sins, and from these they were cleansed by the intercession of Christ on
the basis of His shed blood (1 Jno. 1: 7-9; 2: 1). Do they at this time require
to be "justified" from the "offense" of Adam, or to be
"washed" from their "wicked works" prior to probation? If
so, there are no means by which to be cleansed from these defilements, and as
"there shall in no wise enter into" the holy city "any thing
that defileth" (Rev 21:. 27), they could not, in that case, receive eternal
life. Such a catastrophe is, however, impossible; they who are pronounced
"righteous" and "holy" in character at the judgment-seat
were "made righteous (Rom. 5:. 19) when they rose out of the baptismal
water; and having, "by patient continuance in well doing" (Rom. 2: 7)
and forgiveness of probationary sin, "washed their robes and made them
white in the blood of the Lamb" (Rev. 7: 14) they are free from any
obstacle to the bestowal of eternal life. On this basis the Judge decrees that
"they have right to the tree of life" and to "enter in through
the gates into the city" (Rev. 22: 14). The principle on which the
faithful who are "alive," escape going into the grave, is identical
with the principle on which 'the dead in Christ" are brought out of it viz.,
justification, by the sacrifice of Christ, from "offense" of Adam.
This is equally true of faithful and unfaithful; for until the judgment-seat,
the "dead in Christ" are not divided into these two classes: they are
all raised, therefore, on the same principle. Like Christ, they are
"brought again from the dead through the blood of the everlasting
covenant" (Heb. 13:. 20). The relationship existing between resurrection
and justification is parallel to that between death and sin. As death results
from sin, so resurrection is the consequence of a justification for that sin.
Hence those who have never,- been justified are retained in the bondage of
death; but those who die after justification are, by resurrection, replaced in
the position they occupied immediately before death; and thus they are put on
precisely the same level as the justified ones who "are alive and remain
unto the coming of the Lord" (1 Thess. 4:. 15).
Writing of the time when God will "judge
His people" (Ps. 50: 4),the Spirit in the Psalmist says: "Gather my
saints together" unto me; those that have made a covenant with me by
sacrifice" (ver.5). For whom is this command intended? For the
"angels" who, says Christ, "shall gather together His (the Son
of Man's) elect from one end of heaven to the other" (Matt. 24: 31). Why
is it recorded so long before it is required? Not merely to inform the
"angels." .It must be for the enlightenment of those who come within
the scope of its operation. Who are they? They are described by God as "My
saints." How are they constituted "saints"? By sanctification,
or separation from the world of sin. Can they be so separated without
justification from that sin? No; the Corinthians who "believed on the
Lord" (Acts 28:. 8) were "sanctified" at the same time that they
were "washed" and "justified" (1 Cor. 6:. 11); they
underwent this three-fold change when they "were baptized" (Acts 18.
8). Being then "sanctified in Christ Jesus," they were "called
saints" (1 Cor. 1:. 2). From that time they were no longer their
"own" but "God's" (1 Cor. 6:. 19-20). Some of them, it is
true subsequently "defiled the temple of God" (1 Cor. 3:17; v. 1,2),
and thereby interrupted or terminated their reconciliation with God, as shown
by the exhortation, "Be ye reconciled to God" (2 Col. v. 20); but
this defilement did not make void the fact that they had been
"washed" and "justified" from the sins to which they were
related prior to baptism; if it had, they would again have had to go through
this ceremony in order to be once more "reconciled to God." All that
was needed on their part was to forsake their evil-doing and ask forgiveness
through Christ. Having been "purchased" by God "with the blood
of His own (Son)" (Acts 20: 28), they had entered upon a relationship
which cannot be finally severed on the one hand, or consummated on the other,
until God, by that same Son (Jno. v. 22). will "judge His people."
The "saints" whom the "angels" are instructed to
'gather" are defined to be those who "make a covenant with God by
sacrifice," not those merely who have kept the covenant. Consequently the
gathering comprises both faithful and unfaithful. To represent the command to
"gather" as specifying only the faithful, is at variance with the
expression, "made a covenant;" and furthermore it attributes to the
"angels" that which "the Father" has expressly
"committed unto the Son" (Jno. 5:. 22), viz., the work of
discriminating between those who have, and those who have not, kept the
covenant. "this task is not assigned to the angels by the Spirit; they are
required to discriminate only between those who have "made a covenant with
God by sacrifice" and those who have not. Do
the terms of the command admit of any being gathered to judgment who have not
"made a covenant with God by sacrifice"? No: the "angels"
perform God's will perfectly (Matt 6: 10); they neither add to, nor diminish,
His mandates; they will gather all who have "made a covenant with God by
sacrifice," but none others. None outside the covenant are required; for
the judgment-seat arises out of the covenant; it is for the purpose of
receiving ail "account" (Rom. 14:. 12) from those who have made a vow
to God and been constituted "stewards of the manifold grace of God"
(1 Pet. 4: 10). At such a gathering as this, those outside the covenant have no
place; they have no stewardship of which to "give account;" whatever
punishment they are to receive will be inflicted without the ordeal of a
judgment-seat. Many have suffered retribution in time past, and many more will
do so at the epoch of the gathering of the saints; but in their case the
retribution is inflicted in this life; being related only to "the law of
sin and death" they do not come within the scope of resurrection which is
related to the administration of 'the law of the spirit of life."
This expression is only to be found in the
last book of the Bible; but this is no proof that the death which it describes
is not previously mentioned. The phrase is first used in writing to the seven
churches:--"He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death"
(Rev. 2: 11), the converse of which is, that he who does not
"overcome" shall be so "hurt." What class is represented by
the "he"" Those only who have entered upon a "race" (1
Cor. 9: 24) or warfare (2 Tim. 2: 3-5); only such, therefore, as fail in this
conflict can undergo "the second death;" it is not threatened against
those who never commence the race, and therefore is not applicable to them. Why
is the word "second" made use of? This is a problem given to God's
"servants" (Rev. 1: 1) to solve; and the only way to obtain a
solution is by "comparing spiritual things with spiritual" (1 Cor. 2:
13). A second cannot exist without a first. Is there such an expression as the
first death to be found anywhere? No; But the thing itself is frequently
mentioned: "death by sin" (Rom. 5: 12) "By man came death"
(I Cor. 15: 21). What man? "The first man " who was "of the
earth, earthy" (1 Cor. 15:. 47). "The second man is the Lord from
heaven" (I Cor. 15:. 17). Is there a death to which he is related? Yes;
though in a different way from that of "the first man." It is a death
which "the second man" inflicts on others for their own sins. Who are
they? Some of those who constituted "the second man" in his
multitudinous aspect. Can they suffer
"the second death" without having previously passed through the first
death? No; it would not, in that case, be to them "the second death."
Then how can the unfaithful "alive" at Christ's coming suffer
"the second death?" By reason of the fact that they died when they
were "buried with Christ by baptism into death" (Rom. vi. 4). The
death incurred by Adam and inflicted on Christ being a violent death, it
necessarily follows that Christ, when "sin in" his "flesh"
was "condemned" (Rom. 8:3), suffered the first death in its most
acute form. When, therefore, believers are baptized into that death they die in
symbol the first death and so fulfill, in conjunction with Christ, all that is
necessary to carry out on them the Edenic law. This suffices to free them from
the condemnation of that law, and hence "the second death" is
inflicted on the unfaithful solely for their conduct since they were freed from
the condemnation which brought the first death; as Christ was condemned to a
violent death for inherited sin, so they are condemned to a violent death for
personal sin. But here the parallel ends. Christ's individual righteousness was
the means of releasing him from the power of the first death, but there is no
provision for releasing the unfaithful from the power of "the second
death;" being devoid of personal righteousness they are in the position of
those who have "counted the blood of the covenant wherewith" they
were "sanctified"--and also "washed" and "justified"
(1 Cor. 6:. 11)'an unholy thing," and there is nothing left for them
"but a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation which
shall devour" them (Heb. 10:. 26, 27). Hence the destruction resulting
from "the second death" is unending. It places them in precisely the same position
when devoured as the Edemic law places those who without justification, die
under it; both classes die in their sins and therefore "perish;"
there is no provision for the resurrection of either the one or the other;
death is in each case a finality.
Cannot those who remain in Adam suffer "the
second death"? No; because they have never been released from the power of
the first death. No one could die under the Mosaic curse unless justified by a
shadow ceremony from Adamic condemnation; and on the same principle, no one can
die "the second death" unless justified from the "offense"
which brought the first death. Then why is it said that "the fearful, and
unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and
sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake
which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death" (Rev.
21: 8)' Does not this category describe sinners in Adam? No, it describes
unfaithful in Christ, as shown by the contrast between this verse and the
preceding one. "He that overcometh shall inherit all things.... But the
fearful and unbelieving, &c." One class overcomes; the other class
does not overcome. The former "inherit all things"; but the latter
"have their part in the lake" of fire: having brought forth "the
works of the flesh" (Gal.5: 19-21), after being justified from
"sin-in-the-flesh" as a matter of possession, they experience what a
"fearful thing" it is "to fall into the hands of the living God"
(Heb. 10: 31), and then "of the flesh" they "reap
corruption" (Gal. 6: 8). Are not the unfaithful consumed in the
"everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt. 25:.
41)? Yes; does not this prove that the slanderer and his messengers suffer
"the second death" as well as the unfaithful? No; though they die at the same time and in
the same way it is not "the second death" to both classes. Why not?
Because the term "second death" implies a first death; from which
death "the devil and his angels" have not been freed. The consuming
of the slanderer and his messengers is, indeed, one form of inflicting the
first death; the same fire inflicts that death from which each class has not
been freed, viz., the first death on those in Adam and "the second
death" on those who were once transferred out of Adam into Christ. But is
not "the lake of fire" defined to be "the second death"
(Rev. 20: 14)? No; that expression is
elliptical; a fire cannot produce death unless something living be consigned to
it. It is in reference to the death of those whose names Christ will "blot
out of the book of life" (Rev.3: 5; 20:. 15) that the statement in
question is made; and it is equivalent to saying, "This [death] is the
second death. "The lake of fire" consists of the nations in a state
of warfare, and subject to other Divine judgments; into this the unfaithful are
cast to suffer their "stripes" and then die a violent death. It is
"their part," not the lake of fire, "which is the second
death" (Rev. 21:. 8). Are not the sins' of the unfaithful in Christ as
effective to lock the gates of the grave as the sins of unjustified Gentiles?
No; these two classes are in an entirely different position. Unjustified
gentiles were condemned in Eden, and when they die under that condemnation
their eternal doom is sealed. But the sins of the unfaithful in Christ have not
yet been the subject of condemnation; therefore they must rise. If they did
not, their judgment would be anticipated, and the judgment-seat of Christ would
thereby be made void. When they arrive at that judgment-seat they are free from
condemnation for Adam's "offense," and without any Divine verdict on
their probationary conduct. For the latter alone they will be condemned and
their sins will then be as effective to keep them in the grave as in
condemnation in Adam to prevent the resurrection of unjustified Gentiles. Cannot sinners in Adam still under
condemnation for the Edenic offense be brought from the dead to be punished for
their own misdeeds' No; such a proceeding would be equivalent to slaying the
slain; it would be condemning to death men already doomed to death. Is a work
of supererogation such as this compatible with the dignity and equity of Divine
Majesty? But will not condemnation at the judgment-seat produce suffering in
the flesh? It will; "weeping and gnashing of teeth" (Matt. 8: 12). Is
it not, then, solely for such suffering that the unfaithful are brought before
it? No; whatever suffering may be inflicted on sinners, the climax is death-death
on sinners in Adam now, and '"the second death" on the unfaithful in
Christ at the judgment-seat. The misdeeds of all who die in Adam are known to
God; and if He think well to visit them with tribulation in this life He can
and will do so. But if He allow them to pass into the death to which His own
law has condemned them, without any tribulation, no one has a right to demur.
Jesus Christ was changed to spirit-nature
(Rom. 1:4) when, "by his own blood. he entered in once into the holy
place" (Heb. ix. 12) for the most holy which was beyond "the veil,
that is to say, his flesh" (Heb. 10: 20), represented spirit-life. He was,
therefore, immortalized as the result of justification "by his own
blood" from the Adamic condemnation and the Mosaic curse. His brethren, if
faithful, are to be made "like him" (1 Jno. 3:2) on the same basis.
They are related to his blood from the commencement to the close of their
probation. When washed in the lever of regeneration (Tit. 3: 5),they are sprinkled
with that blood from the altar of burnt offering (I Pet. i. 2; Exod. 29:. 21;
Heb. 13: 10); st the same time some of that blood is
put upon their "right ear," the "thumb of their right
hand," and the "great toe of their right foot" (Exod. 29.: 20),
to show that hence forth they must heed only holy words, perform only holy
acts, and walk only in holy ways; and they are clothed with priestly garments
(Exod 29:. 8-9) to enable them to enter, and officiate in, the holy place. When
they sin. the horns of the altar of incense have to be touched with the blood
of the sin-offering (Lev. 4:. 7), and their incense, when offered, must be
consumed by fire taken from the altar of burnt offering (Lev. 14: 12, 13). As
priests in the holy place, the brethren of Christ are on probation to test
their worthiness to be incorporated, by identity of nature, with their Great
high priest in the most holy place. When he reveals himself from behind the
veil, he will be the manifestation of God in spirit, and they will stand in the
Divine presence Whatever their character they will still be, in a legal sense,
within the confines of the holy place, and not until the record of their
priestly career has been made known, will the decree be given to expel the
unfaithful, and to authorize the faithful to pass beyond the veil into the most
holy. To enable the latter thus to ascend, they must be made
"incorruptible" by "the body of their humiliation" being
"conformed" to the body of Christ's glory" (Phil. iii. 21),
"in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:. 52). This
consummation is the result of justification on entering the holy place, on the
maintenance of that justified condition during
their sojourn therein, and on the decree of justification pronounced by
their judge. Without justification from all sin to which they were previously
related, they could not enter the holy place, and without justification from
all sin subsequently committed they cannot enter the most holy. The foundation
and object of the foregoing mixed assembly define the position of those who
will constitute it. No provision is made for the inclusion of any who have not
been the subjects of a justification by sacrifice; they cannot enter the holy
place even to receive condemnation, and they who are already in it cannot come
out to be associated during judgment with those who have never been reconciled
to God. The occupants of the holy place having been forbidden during probation
to ally themselves with any who are without, it would be at variance with
Divine principles for these two classes to be brought before the same judicial
tribunal. Does this imply that there is no judgment for those outside the holy
place? No; but it implies that they are not related to the tribunal which
arises out of "the law of the spirit of life." Under the Mosiac law
there was "a remembrance again made of sins every year" (Heb. x. 3).
Hence the special ceremonies provided for the annual Day of Atonement. On this
day alone the Aaronic high priest went into the most holy place and appeared before
the Divine Presence. For this purpose he had to offer "an atonement for
himself and for his household, and for all the congregation of Israel"
(Lev. 16:. 17), and be clothed with "holy garments" (ver. 4); he
could not appear there without a covering for sin for himself and for those
whom he represented. What did he take with him? A censer containing incense and some of the blood of the slain
animal (ver. 13-14); that is to say, he prayed for forgiveness on the basis of
sacrifice. On the answer given depended the continuance or the termination of
the life of those he represented; it was therefore a verdict of acceptance or
rejection for such only as had availed themselves of blood-shedding for a
justification from sin. This verdict was a type of the decision to be given by
Christ on his judgment seat. Hence the same principles are applicable to the
one as to the other, viz., the adoption of a. covering for sin by these who
appear before the Divine Presence. They who are without such a covering have no
place there; they are in a naked condition, and under the condemnation
pertaining to "the law of sin and death." They have, therefore, no
place at a tribunal specially constituted to administer "the law of the
spirit of life." They are in the same position in relation to Israel after
the spirit as that of the Gentile nations in relation to fleshly Israel under
the Mosiac law. No Gentile, unless incorporated with Israel, was represented by
Aaron when he appeared before the Divine Presence, and therefore no Gentile was
affected by the verdict brought forth by the high priest.
The following- are the principal truths
demonstrated in the foregoing pages:--
First.-That through the "offense"
of Adam all men are born under "the law of sin and death," by which
they are condemned to death.
Second.--That all men partake of that
"offense" by inheriting its consequence, "sin in the
flesh"; and that therefore they need individual justification therefrom.
Third.--That in the absence of such justification
they cannot be freed from condemnation for Adam's 'offense," and that
consequently when they die they "perish."
Fourth.--That the penalty due for sin under
the Edenic, and subsequent,
dispensations is a violent death, and that for this reason Christ, who had to
undergo that penalty, suffered a violent death.
Fifth.--That Christ's death and resurrection
was the only effective justification from sin, and that consequently none can
be justified from Adamic condemnation unless brought into association with
Christ's death by a ceremony related thereto.
Sixth.--That animal sacrifice, circumcision
and baptism, being representations of Christ's death, have been appointed, in
conjunction with that death, as a means of justification from previous sin.
Seventh.--That this principle of
justification has been embodied in "the law of the spirit of life."
Eighth.--That as sin brings death,
justification from that sin brings deliverance from death; and that
consequently death and resurrection take place through the operation of their
respective laws.
Ninth.--That Christ, who is the embodiment of
"the law of the spirit of life," experienced and brought resurrection
through justification from sin and that consequently those who partake of his
justification., by dying in him, will be brought out of the grave.
Tenth.--That those who do not partake of
Christ's justification, never come under the operation of "the law of the
spirit of life'; and that, as a
consequence, Adamic death in relation to them never comes to an end. Eleventh.--That the object of resurrection to
the judgment seat of Christ is for the administration of "the law of the
spirit of life."
Twelfth.--That although justification from
the offense of Adam and from previous wicked works gives resurrection to those
who before death came under "the law of the spirit of life" it does
not ensure the bestowal of immortality.
Thirteenth. --That those only will be
immortalized who have maintained their. justification by walking in the light
and obtaining forgiveness through the blood of Christ.
Fourteenth.--That those who do not maintain
their justification will, for their subsequent sins, be condemned to a violent
death.
Fifteenth.--That the faithful who are alive when Christ comes will escape entering the grave, by virtue of justification at the commencement of their probation.
"The Truth" is so perfect, and each
part is so interwoven with the rest that it is impossible for error to be
affiliated to one item without others being affected. The subject under
consideration is an illustration of this. If it be said that justification from
the "offense" of Adam is not necessary, it logically follows that
Christ died only for the individual "offenses" of Adam's descendants:
and in that case, seeing that Christ had no "offenses" of his own,
his death was solely for others, not for himself and others. On this hypothesis
he would be a substitute; a principle at variance with. Scriptural teaching on
the Divine method for taking away sin. If, while admitting the necessity for
justification from the "offense" of Adam, it be affirmed that such
justification does not take place at baptism, the only permissible conclusion
is, that it takes place subsequently. If so how? By a faithful probation? In
that case the unfaithful would never be justified from Adam's
"offense," and as a consequence, when their probation was over, they
would die under Adamic condemnation and so "perish"; thereby being
excluded from resurrection to judgment. A faithful probation involves
"patient continuance in well-doing" (Rom. 2:.7); to say that this is
necessary to justification from the "offense" of Adam is to attribute
to "well-doing" a power it does not possess, viz., the power to
justify from sin. And it represents God as requiring from his sons and
daughters probationary good works in order to remove a condemnation which came
upon then through no fault of their own. This is a violation of the, foundation
principle of the plan of salvation. As all in Adam have been "made
sinners," so all who enter Christ are "made righteous" (Rom. 5:
19). This would be impossible without justification from the
"offense" of Adam. Believers are "justified freely by God's
grace," at baptism, "through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus" (Rom. 3:. 24). They are "justified by faith" (Rom. 5:1)
truly but in conjunction with Christ's "blood" (ver. 9), Their
probationary good works are as useless to justify from the "offense"
of Adam as from their own "offenses"; before or after baptism. Of
what value, then, is "well-doing"? In conjunction with forgiveness of
sins during probation (1 Jno. 1: 9) it ensures immunity from "the second
death" (Rev. 2: 11) and gives eternal life (ver. 7). The "faith"
with which probation commences is by subsequent "well-doing,"
"made perfect" (Jas. 2:. 22), and thereby "a man" who has
walked in the footsteps of Abraham "is justified by works" (ver. 24).
Christ's probation is the mast faithful on record, and yet his faithfulness
could not cleanse him from sin without blood-shedding. That which was not
possible for him is certainly impossible for those dependent on him. If it be
said that baptized believers by an abode in the grave pay the penalty for
Adam's offense, and are thereby justified from it, much greater anomalies are
produced. If such be the case, what becomes of the generation of believers who
"are alive and remain" at Christ's appearing? If these fail to pay
the penalty they fail to be justified from Adam's "offense," and, as
a consequence, cannot enter the kingdom. If, however. they enter the kingdom
without paying the penalty, like their brethren who came out of the grave are
said to do, there are two ways of salvation fundamentally different; which is
an absolute impossibility. If the death
of baptized believers be of any value in purging them from Adam's offense, it
must be equally effective for the unfaithful as for the faithful. Would God allow men who deserved condemnation
for their own conduct during the probation, to free themselves subsequently, by
an event which they could not help, from the condemnation arising out of the
conduct of another? Impossible. Does he even allow men who have been faithful
during probation to purge themselves by literal death from Adamic condemnation?
No; their death is no justification whatever, mid contributes not an iota
towards their attainment to eternal life. To say that it does is to give to
those who have been actual transgressors the power to take away Adamic sin; and
to do this is to rob Christ of a part of his redemptive work. Nay more; if
carried to its logical conclusion it will rob Christ of the whole of his
redemptive work for others. 1He died to cleanse himself from Adamic sin; and
this is accepted by God as the means of cleansing others from Adamic sin and
also from their own sins. Thus the same death takes away personal sin and
inherited sin. If the literal death of faithful believers can purge them from
Adamic sin it is equally effective in purging them from their own sins; and in
that case they do not require purging by the death of Christ. If, while
admitting that justification from the offense of Adam takes place at baptism
and that resurrection takes place as a consequence, it is also contended that
resurrection will embrace others devoid of such justification, what is the
consequence? A self-contradictory position, which ignores an axiom of sound
reasoning, viz. that every conditional affirmative involves its corresponding:
negative. Thus when God said to Adam, "If thou eat, thou shalt die"
(Gen. 2: 17), He meant, If thou dost not eat, thou shalt not die; and when He
said through Peter, "Be baptized for the remission of sins" (Acts 2:
38) He meant, If you are not baptized, will not have remission of sins.
Likewise when it is said to the brethren of Christ, "To him that
overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life' (Rev. 2:.7), it means that
he who does not overcome shall not so eat. The Scriptures teem with conditional
statements such as these, and, as a rule. their negative aspect is as fully
recognized as their affirmative. What reason is there for making the statement
about resurrection an exception? None whatever, except the exigencies of a
false position. When it is said that Christ was "brought again from the
dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13: 20), it
means that without that blood he would not have been brought from the dead; and
when it is said that baptized believers are by "the law of the spirit of
life"' made "free from the law of sin and death (Rom. 8: 2), it means
that those who have not been brought into the same position are not free from
the Edenic law. To say that resurrection at Christ's coming will, in some
cases, be through justification, and in others without justification, is
analogous to saying that remission of sins is obtainable, in this dispensation,
through baptism; or, that the partaking of the Tree of Life will be through
overcoming and also without overcoming. The contradictory nature of that
relating to resurrection should be equally so. If resurrection at Christ's
appearing will, in come cases, take place without justification from Adamic
sin, it could do so in all. If it could, that part of Christ's justifying work
is a superfluity; in other words, Christ's sacrificial death was required, not
to remove a barrier to resurrection, but only to remove a barrier to eternal
life. If this be true, he made a false claim when he said, "I am the
Resurrection and the Life;" he should only have said, "I am the
Life." In claiming to be "the Resurrection and the Life,"
Christ, in effect, attributes this two-fold position to one source, viz., his
own sacrificial death. Without that death he would not have been endowed with
power to raise the dead or to give eternal life. The source of his power
regulates its exercise. He will bestow eternal life only on those who have been
"washed" from all sin by "the blood of the covenant"; and
he will, in like manner raise only those who have been justified by the same
blood from inherited and committed sin prior to probation. To extend his
resurrection power outside the scope of his shed blood is to open the door for
his lifegiving power to be also applied where his
blood has had no efficacy. Serious
errors such as these can only be avoided by adhering to those Divine principles
which are in harmony with all parts of the Truth. The first requisite for this
is a recognition of the full force of "the law of sin and death," and
the second, the precise scope of "the law of the spirit of life." The
combined operation of these two laws that the condemnation inherited from Adam
is a barrier to probation, a barrier to resurrection, and a barrier to eternal
life; that "the blood of the everlasting covenant" is necessary for
the removal of this three-fold barrier; that resurrection to judgment is the
result of probation, and therefore takes place by virtue of "the blood of
the covenant;" that condemnation at the judgment seat is solely for an
unfaithful probation, and therefore quite distinct from condemnation in Adam; that
approval, resulting in eternal life, is for probationary faithfulness; that sin
during probation as well as previously, requires the application of "the
blood of the covenant," and that consequently immortality is only
obtainable through the blood of Christ.
Note: the first
figures are
the chapter and verse in the Bible: the last figures are the pages in Blood of the
Covenant. |
4:24 11 25 11 12:15 14 48 12 15:26 13 19:6 13 20:12 15 22:18 13 25:22 16 |
1:27 3
31 3
2:2 3
15-18 3
16-17 2
17 19,55
21 3
22 3
25 4
3: 3
5 3
6 4
7 4,24
8 3,4
10 4
11 4
14-19 5
15 5,11,25,50
17 17
19 19
20 6
21 6,24
4:4 9
26 9
5:5 9
24 10
6:12 9
7:2 9
8:20 9
9:11 14
11:31 10
12:1 10
1-3 2
3 16
7 10
8 9,10
13:4 10
14:18 10
15:7-17 2
9-17 10
17:12 12
14 11
26:5 1
EXODUS
(cont.)
29:8-9 39
14 17
18 16
20 39
21 39
28 17
30:33 14
32:24-25 4
40:13 6
14 6
35 21
LEVITICUS
1:4 6,16
9 16
2:4 16
13 16
3:1 16
4:2 16
3 16
7 39
12-21 16
7:8 16
9:24
10:2 14
12~ 21
2 21
3 21
4 21
4-5 21
6 21
16:4 . 40
12-13 39
13-14 40
16 17
17 40
20 17
21 7
22 7
33 17,21
18:5 15
20:2 14
3 14
9 13
10 13
27 13
21:33 21
24:16 13,19
17 13
28:5 15
NUMBERS
7:10 17
NUMBERS (cont.)
7:15 16,17
16 17
17 17
11:1-3 14
14:1-4 14
12 14
13-19 14
20 14
23 14
29-35 14
15:3-12 16
30 14,15
31 14,15
35 13
16:32 14
41-50 14
21:5-6 14
25:1-9 14
DEUTERONOMY
10:16 12
12:29 14
13:11 13
16 17:7 13
21:18-21 15
28:15-68 15,46
21-25 14
49-57 49
59 14
60 13,14
61 14
62 14
30:6 12
15-16 13
32:47 13
JOSHUA
7:20-25 15
11:21 14
II CHRONICLES
22:7 14
28:19 4
EZRA
9:2 43
PSALMS
2:8 52
7:11 29
PSALMS
(cont.)
19:13 24
21:4 26
22:4 9-10 21
30:5 25
32:1 6,8,10
2 8
37:9 12,50
38 20
49:15-16 30
50:4 35
5 20,31,36
14 20
15 20
23 18
65:1-2 52
69:4 26
20 22
85:2 6
91 :14-16 25
102:24 22
105:9-10 1
122:5 47,48
143:2 23
PROVERBS
8:29-31 29
18:10 28
21:4 29
28:1 49
ECCLESIASTES
12:14 20
ISAIAH
53:8 22
12 7
60:3 20
EZEKIEL
18:24 20
DANIEL
4:27 45
7:25 47
9:26 11
12:1 49
2 18,20
JONAH
3. 46
ZECHARIAH
3:7 25
9:11 32
MATTHEW
3:5-6 44
6 22,23
13-15 22
17 23
5:18 30
6:10 36
8:12 39
10:40 45
12:43-44 44
16:18 31
19:26 51
20:16 31
19 24
21:26 44
24:16 19
31 36
25:41 38
26:39 24,30
44 30
65-66 19
27:46 22
55 24
28:18 52
MARK
1:4 22
9:43-47 12
16:15-16 45
LUKE
1:17 44
35 21
2:7 21
21 21
22 21
23 21
25 20
26 20
29-30 20
16:31 43
22:44 24,30
JOHN
JOHN (cont.)
1:10-11 43
29 13
3:3 31
16 28
18 45
18-19 43
34 21
5:21 52
22 36
29 46
35 45
46-47 43
6:39 34,44
7:7 45
8:29 13
9:39 45
10:15 22
33 44
36 44
11:25 31,33
12:19 45
47-48 43
48 44
14:19 45
31 25
15:9 25
22 45
16:33 45
17:2 52
5 45
18:20 45
31 29
19:11 22
31-33 22
34 22
ACTS
2:21 9
23 22
24 26,50
38 9,19,28,55
3:23 45,47
7:51 12
10:34-35 45
42 48
12:23 45,51
13:41 47
43 29
15:6-10 13
14 46
17:30 46
30-31 47
32 47
18:8 36
20:28 31,36,44,5
ACTS
(cont.)
22:16 27
24:24 48
25 48
26:18 46
ROMANS
1:4 39
2:7 35,54
9 48
16 48
20 12
25 21,22
29 20,22
3:1 43
2 12
19 13,19,29
24 54
25 25
26 24,50
4:3 10
7 10
9-11 11
25 26
5:1 25,26,33,54
9 17,26,54
10 16
12 4,24,37
14 4,11,14
15 29,31
15-16 35
16 27,28
17 27,29
17-18 19
18 19,26,27,28
18-19 5,33,52
19 4,8,27,28,
31,35,54
6:3 34
4 7,26,31,32,37
6 7,27
7 26
9 26
10 31
20-21 26
22 28
7:7 13
9 15,21
10 13,16
12 13
13 13
18 18
8:1 28
2 1,28,55
3 3,7,13,16,19
ROMANS (cont.)
8:3 28,29,37
4 27
13 18
17 29
19 16
32~ 30
3~34 28
3~4 27
9:6 20
23 24
31-32 20
10:5 15
11:33 24
14:8 34
9 34,52
9-12 44
12 36,48
I CORINTHIANS
1:2 36
30 6
2:13 37
3:17 18,36
5:1-2 36
13 48
6:11 27,32,36,37
16 18
19 18
19-20 36
20 18,34
7:14 21
39 18
9:24 37
10:18 20
12:1 18
1
15:12-22 32
17-18 32
18 29
21 31,37
22 31,32
47 37
52 39
53 16,31
II CORINTHIANS
3:7 15
7..9 18
9 22
5:1-2 31
4 16
10 48
14 7,15,31
H
CORINTHIANS (cont.)
5:15 34
20 36,45
21 7,19
6:1 29
GALATIANS
2:20 7,25
3:13 19,22,30
17 6
19 13,29
21 20,22
27 6,33
4:3 12
4 7,13,19,21,30
5:19-21 18,38
24 18
6:8 18,38
16 20
EPHESIANS
2:1 29
2 45
3 29
4 25
10 9
13-14 16,33
15-16 25
4:21 45
5:2 16
6:2 15
PHILLIPIANS
2:8 22,33
8-9 26
9 28,34,44
3:10 32
21 39
COLOSSIANS
1:21 7,17,27,31,32
2:10 17,33
11 11,12,22
12 12
13 27
17 13
20 7
3:3 7
I TIMOTHY
2:14 4
3:16 45
2:3-5. 37
13 51
3:15 43
1:9-10 46
4:14 19
15 10,34,35,44
16 32
17 10
1:8 48
1:2 51
3:5 39
7 31
1:9 26
2:2 15,20,21
14 7,16,19
15 13
17 7
4:15 13,26,32
5:8-9 33
6:11 48
13 i
17 i
18 1
7:7 4
9 4
12 51
8:2 21,22
9:4 16
5 16
12 26,39
13 17
13-14 17
15 18
15-28 20
16 51
21-23 27
22 i
23 12,51
26 11,26,32
10:1 7,12
1-2 17
3 40
4 1,23
60
HEBREWS (cont.)
10:10 16
12 32,44
20 39
26 35
26-27 37
31 38,51
34 13
11:5 10
6 42
12:2 24
13:10 16,39
12 16
20 1,26,34,35,55
1:13 51
14 3
15 3
2:21 10
22 54
24 8,54
1:2 7,27,39
19 34
2:5 17
24 16,27
4:5 48
10 36
1:4 5
2:1 34,44,52
7 48
3:18 29
1:6 33
7 32
7-9 35
9 54
2:1 35
16 3
3:1 32
2 39
4 28
5 23
5:6 18
14 10
14-15 48
1:1 37
18:31
2:7 54,55
11 37,54
17 16
3:5 38
8 12
10 31
14 9
6:4-8 46
9 46
16 46
7:14 33,35
8:3 47
5 47
7-12 47
9: 47
20 47
11:18 47
12:17 12
13:8 7
16:1 47
18 49
19:13 52
20:2 9
8 9
9 9,12,50
14 38
15 38
21:8 38
18 49
27 35
22:11 35
14 35
17 49