Collyer on Sacrifice
"Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins." The
doctrine of atonement involved in this scriptural principle is one of the most
important and in some respects one of the most difficult of all the primary
truths connected with the Gospel. Nowhere else is it so easy for men to get out
of their depth, and there is no other subject that proves so tempting.
There is certainly danger that vital truths affecting the
sacrifice of Christ may be called in question or may be obscured by wrong
teaching on this subject. There is far more danger that a destructive strife of
words should arise through men getting out of their mental depth in an effort to
measure the mind of God. Dr. Thomas once remarked that the elementary truths
regarding redemption were few and simple and no reason could be given for them
beyond "the fact that God wills them". If a candidate for baptism revealed a
sound knowledge of these simple truths and of this simple explanation of them,
we should not dare to "forbid water".
Suppose that having rendered a satisfactory confession of
faith on all other first principles the candidate said: "I believe that God
required a perfect sacrifice before He could forgive sin, and that He provided
the One capable of rendering that sacrifice. He sent forth His Son, the Lord
Jesus, made of a woman, made in all points like his brethren, tempted in all
points as we are, but by virtue of his divine parentage so superior to us
morally that he was able to render the perfect sacrifice required and thus to
secure redemption for himself from sin-stricken human nature and both
forgiveness and redemption for those who come to God through him in the way
appointed." Should we dare to forbid baptism because the candidate was unable to
explain why God required a perfect sacrifice, or why He demanded the shedding of
blood before sins could be remitted ?
If we are quite agreed that an understanding of these simple
elements is sufficient for one to enter the Covenant, surely it is a tragedy if
brethren become divided simply through the effort to see further. It may be even
worse than a tragedy, for it sometimes leads to destructive strife in which
extremes act and react upon each other, the disputants getting further and
further out of their depth, while the vital duties of life are
neglected.
We would not suggest for a moment that being agreed on the
simple and elementary truths we should be content to go no further. Certainly we
must push on and gain all the knowledge of divine things that is possible.
Discussion of such matters may be very helpful if conducted by brethren who have
grasped the more elementary teaching of the Word regarding human conduct. This,
however, is certainly a subject in which we do well to be swift to hear and slow
to speak; we may venture to suggest, still slower to write. So much sin lies at
the door of the man who invented printing.
It may be helpful to take note of the main causes that have
led brethren astray when they have tried to probe deeply into the doctrine of
atonement. We may then be on our guard against these particular
dangers.
One cause has been through the tendency to confuse the shadow
with the substance. Brethren have reasoned that the types of the law suggested
such and such necessities and the sacrifice of Christ had to conform. The truth
is, of course, exactly the other way. The work of Christ was the very central
feature of the divine purpose and all the shadows of the law had to conform to
it. The Apostle in writing to the Hebrews, truly reasons from the types forward
to Christ, but he makes it plain that Christ is the substance. We recognize the
writings of the Apostles as of precisely the same authority as the Old Testament
Scriptures. We do well therefore to take their plainest language as our guide
and see that our understanding of types and symbols falls into line.
A second cause of confusion is the tendency to seek an
explanation according to a human conception of logic and legality. Many years
ago we had to point out that while human laws might often have effects far
removed from the intention of the law makers, this could never be the case with
the laws of God. We cannot recognize any distinction between the divine law and
the divine will. When God makes a law it is the expression of His will for the
time to which it applies, and it is made with a full knowledge of all its
effects (see Act 15:18). We can hardly suppose that any brother would ever
dispute this proposition; but some have reasoned as if they never thought of
such an idea. We do well therefore to remind each other of this simple truth,
which forbids us to make any distinction between legal necessities and the
divine will.
A third cause of confusion has been through the persistent use
of phrases that are sometimes misleading. Some staunch brethren in upholding the
truth that Christ bore our sin-stricken nature have used language suggestive of
an automatic cleansing by death. We could easily have rival camps in this
matter, disputants on each side being totally unconscious of the ambiguity of
their own language but too acutely conscious of the worst interpretations that
could be put on the language of opponents.
Earnest brethren and sisters, anxious to hold the truth, have
sometimes been perplexed and almost distracted in the strife of words, beyond
their power to understand. The havoc that such strife may cause is perhaps best
illustrated by the fact that one of the most capable men we ever had among us,
in his efforts for legal logic ended by teaching justification for sin without
faith, and we were all slow to realize the full enormity of the position. I well
remember the surprise and even consternation of one of his supporters when he
was first shown this feature of the case.
Even now there is the same disposition towards legal reasoning
regarding types and shadows with the clear principles of Scripture neglected.
Although disputants would deny the charge, it is a fact that some of them
persistently lose sight of the fact that all things in God's dealings with this
world centre round Christ. The reason that all things under the law were
cleansed by the offering of blood, was that all things in the age to come will
be through the sacrifice of Christ. In reasoning with Jews it might be necessary
to invert the argument, but we who are privileged to know the substance of God's
great purpose must never lose sight of it.
What is the literal truth revealed in the New Testament as to
the meaning of sacrifice? It is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life
on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death.
Whatever figurative or partly figurative language the Bible may use, this is the
real meaning. Washed in his blood, our sins laid upon him, a bearing of our sins
in his own body, the purchase of his blood, the ransom, his being delivered for
our offences, the just for the unjust: all such expressions must be understood
in harmony with the literal truth that God forgives. Transgressions of the
divine law can only be put away by the forgiveness and forbearance of God.
Physical uncleanness of nature can only be put away by the power of God. The
sacrifice of Christ is the divinely appointed basis in which God in mercy and
forbearance offers forgiveness and redemption to sinners (Rom 3: 23-24; 4:7; Eph
1:7; Col 1:14; 1Jo 1:9; 2:12).
If we desire to probe further and ask the question why did God
require such a sacrifice as the basis of the forgiveness offered to humanity, we
shall never find any answer through the various interpretations of the law or by
talk of the penalty due to sin. Divine law is simply an expression of divine
will. It was not the will of God that man should sin, but it was the will of God
that man should be a free agent and that death should be the wage of sin. It was
the will of God that the human race having been defiled by sin should have no
access to His holy presence except on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. And it
is the will of God that we should respond to the gracious invitation and be
saved on the basis He has provided (1Th 5:9). If we ask why God required such a
sacrifice, we must seek a moral explanation. It is no answer to quote the law
which expresses His will.
Guided by Scripture we can find a moral explanation that
satisfies every demand that the intelligence can make. The perfect sacrifice was
required that the flesh might be effectively repudiated, that sin might be
conquered and condemned, that the righteousness and holiness of God might be
declared, and that sinful man should be humbled without a particle of ground for
boasting being left to him (Rom 3:23-27; 8:3; Eph 2:1-9).
God made it clear even in ancient times that humanity could
not approach to Him at all except with humble faith and on the basis of blood
shedding. He gave a law that emphasized the sinfulness and helplessness of His
people (Rom 8:15; 5:20). He made it clear that when sins were put away by
sacrifice they were really forgiven (Lev 4:20,26,31,35). He promised a deliverer
who should "make an end of sin", and "bring in everlasting righteousness" (Dan
9). When the fullness of time was come He revealed that scheme of love into
which even the angels had desired to look. He made selection of a virgin of the
house of Israel and produced from her one who should be strong for the great
work required. So the flesh was repudiated even in the birth of Christ, sin was
conquered and condemned in every act of his life, and finally he freely rendered
the last obedience even unto death that he might be raised from the dead to
immortality and glory as the captain of our salvation -- made perfect through
suffering (Heb 2:10). To him much was given and of him much was required. The
lights and shadows inseparable from the formation of a character needed to be
intense in the probation of our great Captain. He worked out his perfection and
salvation by the strength God gave him, and thus through him God opened the way
of life for us. Here is the sin nature that had produced only helpless sinners,
controlled, condemned and finally put away by the strong Son of God in his
perfect obedience of life and death. On this basis humanity can approach the
holiness of the Creator and men of faith though sinners can be exalted to the
divine. On this basis of the sin nature conquered, repudiated and condemned by
the one God made strong for Himself, God forgives. That is the real meaning of
atonement.
It is hardly possible to imagine anyone who had ever caught
even the most fleeting glimpse of this vision turning back to the pitiful
speculations of men as to supposed legal necessities. There are those in the
world who think that the real body of Christ never rose, but remains eternally
dead as the price due to God or the punishment due to sin! It would be difficult
to make any comment on such an idea while preserving the language of decorum.
The brethren are doubtless proof against such monstrous teaching. Let them keep
far from the narrow reasoning that leads in that direction. The New Testament
describes the sacrifice of Christ in plain and literal language. Let us
interpret all figures and symbols by reference to the plain statements. God --
who knows the end from the beginning, who does according to His will, but who
"cannot deny Himself" -- God provided the means for condemning and overcoming
sins on the basis of which He with much forbearance forgives those who please
Him by their faith.
Much controversy has been caused by the question as to whether
Christ offered for his own cleansing. It has been largely a war of words, due on
the one hand to a fear of saying or subscribing to anything derogatory to Christ
and on the other hand perhaps a tendency to relapse into the old exaggeration of
"original sin". There ought not to be a minute's difficulty in dealing with the
question and securing agreement.
When we speak of "sin" in the flesh we use the phrase just as
the Apostle used it in Rom 7. Obviously it is a derived or secondary sense of
the word, for the primary meaning of sin is transgression of divine law. It is a
similar extension of meaning to that of the word "death" for poison when they
said, "there is death in the pot". The Apostle speaks of a law in his members
which wars against the laws of God and leads to transgression. He calls this
physical weakness "sin" in the flesh or "sin" that dwelleth in me. It is the
diabolos in human nature, the natural desires of the flesh which, if they are
allowed to "conceive", "bring forth sin". We need not argue as to whether there
is such a law. We all know it only too well. We are born with it and if we give
way to any sin we correspondingly strengthen the evil desire in that direction
and thus make "sin" in the flesh more active.
To suppose that an extraordinarily pure and righteous man
would feel this weakness less than others is a huge mistake. The truth is the
other way. It is the thoroughly fleshly man who is unconscious of the sinful law
in his members and who probably would not understand what the Apostle meant. The
man with the highest ideals and the most spiritual mind will feel the struggle
most. To suggest that Christ was tempted in all points as we are and yet without
this law of sin in his members is to proclaim a complete contradiction. It is
like saying, "Except that he was not tempted at all!" Suggestions from without
are no temptation to us if they do not appeal to something within. Christ bore
just this same defiled nature that we bear or he could not have been tempted as
we are and therefore could not have condemned and conquered sin. Christ bore
this quality in the flesh, but he never allowed it to conceive even to the point
of sinful thought. Therein was the most terrific struggle and the most
portentous victory of all human experience. It is easy to understand that with
his ideals, and his standards of rectitude, the weakness of the flesh would be
so distressing that even the most startling language of the Psalms is
comprehensible.
Now whether we take the plain language of the Apostles (Heb
9:12; 10:20) or the prophecies and types of the law, the teaching is that all
things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam's
race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that
sacrifice (Lev 16:2-14 -- note seven times of sprinkling) .
Some have caused confusion by arguing whether Christ's
offering for himself was "only a matter of obedience to God" or whether it was
something more. What do they mean? Obedience to God is carrying out the will of
God. What can be required beyond this? Surely we are all agreed that Christ,
"the beloved son", "the servant in whom God delighted", and the one who "always
did his Father's will", needed no forgiveness. Surely we are also agreed that he
needed cleansing from the sin-stricken nature in which he wrestled with and
conquered the diabolos. There could be no forgiveness for personal sinners
except on the basis of the perfect sacrifice, for this was the will of God.
There could be no cleansing and immortalizing, no entry into the Most Holy by
any of Adam's race except on the basis of the same perfect sacrifice, for that
also was the will of God. Christ came to do God's will, he was obedient in all
things even unto death, and so with his own blood -- in other words, on the
basis of his perfect offering -- he entered the Most Holy "having obtained
eternal redemption."
The truth is that when brethren who are agreed as to these
fundamentals still argue and suspect each other of being "unsound", they are
really in their minds raising that old question of many years ago, "Supposing
Christ had been the only one to be saved, would he still have had to die a
sacrificial death?" Everyone ought to have learned long ago that this question
is not legitimate. It is asking, "If the will of God had been totally different
in one direction, would it have remained the same in another closely related
matter?" There is only one proper answer to such a question. No one knows what
the will of God would have been if His purpose had been other than it is, and
only a presumptuous man would claim to know.
We have to do with the purpose of God as it is and as it is
revealed to us. These truths are so simple and withal so beautiful that unless
brethren insist on a misleading form of words making for strife, there should be
no difficulty in agreeing.
The will of God determines everything. It was the will of God
that none of our sin-stricken race should enter His holy presence except on the
basis of the most complete repudiation of the flesh involved in a perfect
obedience even unto death. He provided the strength necessary for this great
work and it was for this purpose that Christ was born. Thus through the blood of
the everlasting Covenant he was brought again from the dead. With his own blood
he entered the Most Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, and we, if
we are faithful, can stand at last "washed from our sins in his blood" and
covered with his righteousness. All these figures meaning that God accepts,
forgives and cleanses His people on the basis of the perfect life and death of
His Anointed Son.
