A series Noted at the beginning of this series of editorials, Christadelphian history has been marked by disputes regarding sacrificial offerings for human nature and Christ’s relation to his own sacrifice. Marked differences of opinion still exist. We feel some of the disagreement would disappear if we recognized a wrong assumption that is frequently heard and if we would not misuse sensitive terms.
A Wrong Assumption
It is not correct to assume that sacrificial offering always indicates personal guilt. This incorrect assumption leads to such wrong conclusions as: offerings are not made for human nature because we bear no moral responsibility for human nature; and, Christ did not offer for himself because he committed no personal sins and he was not morally responsible for his nature.
As noted in the two previous editorials, while it is true we bear no moral responsibility for our nature, it is also true that sacrificial offerings were made for non-transgression events (e.g., childbirth). The conclusion is evident: sacrificial offerings do not always indicate personal guilt.
Teaching is the key
What sacrificial offerings consistently do is provide instruction to the offerer. This is their main purpose. Their purpose is not to satisfy divine legalisms or repay God for our sins. He is not the beneficiary; we are, if we will learn and apply the lessons. That is why He makes such declarations as: “Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, 0 man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” (Micah 6:7-8).
We need instruction regarding our human nature. So did Christ. Offerings under the law provided such instruction and so did the offering of our Lord. We should, therefore, have no barrier to acknowledging that Christ’s offering benefited himself and us.
Before commenting on the relation of Christ to his own sacrifice, there are some other aspects of associating moral responsibility with human nature which need to be addressed.
Misused Terms
Racial alienation
“Inherited alienation,” “alienated by birth,” “racial alienation” are non-biblical phrases that must be used with great care or not at all.
We are born into the following circumstances: we are outside the family of God, separated from His presence and from the hope of eternal life. The only way our relationship with God can be altered and our prospects changed from death to life is through His grace and our association with the covenants of promise through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Using “alienation” and “alienated” to describe these circumstances at our birth is not appropriate because:
- The word “alienated” appears seven times in the KW, always expressing God’s hostility regarding wicked works (Ezk. 23:17,18,18,22, 28; Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21). The word “alienation” does not occur in scripture.
- In the English language, the words “alienated” and “alienation” denote hostility in personal relations not a status acquired by birth. “Alienate — to make hostile where previously friendship had existed.” “Alienation — the state of being alienated.”
- “Alien,” on the other hand, normally expresses simply being “foreign” or not a citizen of the same nation as another (so used by Paul in Eph. 2:12). Two people of different citizenship’s — i.e. aliens to each other — can have a close friendship.
Accordingly, when some Christadelphians say we are “alienated by birth” or born in a “state of alienation,” others suspect they believe in racial guilt or that God is hostile toward us simply because we are born. Considering the meaning of words, that is understandable. We should be sensitive to how others understand the terms we use; we should avoid using words which confuse, rather than clarify, what we mean.
By nature children of wrath
Some have argued that Ephesians 2:3 indicates the anger of God rests upon all from birth. But God does not hate mankind: He “so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son;” “God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us;” “God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;” “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us, and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; II Cor. 5:19; 1 John 4:10).
As Paul says to pagans at Lystra and Athens: “(God) in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own way…the times of this ignorance God winked at…” (Acts 14:16; 17:30). By simply being human beings, the race does not exist under the frowns of God. Nevertheless, by letting our natural desires habitually rule our lives, we do become worthy of the wrath of God. This is the meaning of Ephesians 2:1-3.
In this passage, Paul addresses Gentile converts in verses 1 and 2 (“you,” “ye”) and Jewish converts in verse 3 (“we”). Before their conversion (“in times past”), Gentiles who followed the principles of paganism (v.2) were “children of disobedience.” They had walked “in the vanity of their mind…having given themselves over unto lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness” (4:17-19). Sin was their father and they were sin’s children. The Jews may have thought they were of a higher status. Their morals may have appeared better on the surface; but, like the Gentiles, they too were living in the passions of the flesh “fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind” (v.3). As a result, they “were by [following their] nature the children of wrath even as others [the pagans].”
Accordingly, these verses should not be construed as describing our inherited condition at birth. They are speaking of the sorry state that results from conduct controlled by our nature.
Other problems
There are other ideas, as well, that lead to contention on this matter. “Forgiveness” and “remission,” for example, are words that should not be associated with our racial condition. Both terms speak of committed transgressions of which we are personally guilty and from which we need to personally repent.
A few places in the New Testament, the word “sin” is used of our inborn lusts rather than our committed acts (e.g. Romans 7:17). This could cause confusion; but the context makes the usage clear and, with care, we hopefully can keep our own communications clear on this topic.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One