In most magazines, even religious ones, this would be an extraordinary topic for an editorial: perhaps an esoteric article, but not an editorial. Throughout the history of Christadelphians, however, there have been long-running discussions regarding the issue of offerings for the nature as opposed to offerings for actual transgressions, and corollary discussions regarding Christ’s relation to his own sacrifice. Did our Lord benefit from his own sacrifice? If so, how? Was his sacrifice for his nature as well as for our sins?
We do not pretend to present a neatly packaged exposition on this subject. What we hope to do is present some perspectives that may prove useful to our meditations, our practical living of the gospel and to our fellowship with one another. Lord willing, these reflections will be presented over the next few months.
Patience with each other
Some are impatient with what, at times, seems like an academic discussion. After all, everybody agrees we have a grievous problem with our transgressions. In spite of our best intentions, we keep committing sins. We all know the only way God will forgive these sins is by our faithful association with the sacrifice of Christ.
Everyone knows, too, that we have a humanly insoluble problem with our nature. We are dying, and while we may delay death, we cannot prevent it. We are prone to sin right at the core of our thinking. Our natural tendency is to be self-serving and indulgent of all our sensual desires. If we practice asceticism to suppress these drives, our nature is such that pride takes over and we glory in our humiliation. We all know the only way God will deliver us from dying, sin-prone nature is by our faithful association with the sacrifice of Christ.
Therefore, some will say, the issue is simple: Christ is the total answer, those who complicate the process of redemption are looking for something to argue about.
Others look askance at those who don’t want to delve into the “deeper” things of the Truth. They feel the “simpler” approach misses some of the richness of God’s thinking. In fact, they may even feel that if we do not grasp the intricacies of the “atonement,” we don’t really understand the Truth.
Let’s be patient with each other. Everyone is not the same mentally and emotionally any more than we are the same physically. God is not trying to save only one kind of person. Jewish converts were intrigued by relating the gospel to the structure of the law, thus the Epistle to the Hebrews was written. Some of us have this same fascination. Gentile converts needed basic instruction on elementary morality, thus the need for the First Epistle to the Corinthians and some of us need similar instruction. We are different but, if we are Christ’s, we are all cherished members of his body.
Nothing incidental
Few things irritate a person more than minimizing something he thinks is vital. In this regard, saying actual transgressions are an “incidental” problem or that our nature is of “incidental” concern is inflammatory.
True, one might argue that actual transgression is behind everything. Because one man committed sin, death passed upon all his progeny. Furthermore, it’s actual transgressions that are our personal responsibility. It is also true that transgression receives far more mention in connection with sacrifice than does human nature.
On the other hand, one could rightly argue that, as we are presently constituted, transgression results from our human nature. Until human nature is removed, sin will continue; therefore, our nature is the core of the problem.
The truth of the matter is that both are grievous problems; neither is “incidental.”
Making mountains out of molehills
We have all discussed religion with a casual acquaintance. A common occurrence is to discover areas of disagreement and concentrate on them. Why talk about something on which we agree?
The same thing happens among Christadelphians.
We all agree that sacrifice is required for personal sins so why talk about that? We disagree on how sacrifice applies to human nature so we focus on this area of the subject. Before long, we have made a mountain out of the disagreement and let the major area of agreement shrink to a molehill.
Let’s keep our perspective right. The subject of sacrifice primarily concerns personal sins. That was true under the law of Moses and it is true under the new covenant in Christ. We say this without denying the relevance of sacrifice to areas of non-transgression.
Atonement for non-transgressions
Under the law of Moses, a sin offering was made to receive atonement for childbirth (Lev. 12:7-8) or a running issue (15:15,30). No actual transgression was involved.
The ritual for cleansing a leper included this: “And the priest shall offer the sin offering, and make an atonement for him…” (Lev. 14:19). The ritual was performed because the man had been sick, not because he had committed some transgression.
On the annual day of atonement, the high priest was to “make an atonement for the holy place…and he shall go out unto the altar that is before the LORD, and make an atonement for it” (Lev. 16:16,18). These were inanimate objects that had not sinned. In fact, they pointed forward to the Lord Jesus and the heavenly tabernacle (Heb. 9:23; 13:10).
True, actual transgression can be linked to each case cited above: a running issue comes from within which is where sin comes from; leprosy speaks of our corruptible nature which leads to sin; the altar was atoned for because of the uncleanness and sins of Israel. In fact, the whole structure of sacrifice did not exist until actual transgression was committed (Gen. 3:21). We would expect, therefore, to be able to link offerings back to committed sins.
But that should not prevent us from seeing that offerings were made for non-transgression situations.
Instruction, not reparation
Israel made the mistake of thinking they were giving something to God in their offerings. They had absorbed the heathen notion of paying Him to repair the damage their sins had caused.
The folly of such a notion should have been obvious: “The world is mine, and the fullness thereof. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats” (Psa. 50:12-13).
David had it right. He had devoted billions of dollars worth of materials (at today’s prices I Chron. 22:14 is $42 B. in gold and $10B. in silver) to the service of God but he realized, “All things come of thee, and of thine own have we given thee” (I Chron. 29:14).
Nothing should be more obvious to us: “Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins” (I John 4:10). The heathen notion is that we appease an angry God whom we have offended; we give to Him from our resources. The truth is that we do not supply the propitiation, He does. The fact is He is the origin and definition of love and reaches out to draw us to Him.
Sacrifice is not designed to give something to God. What then does it accomplish? It teaches principles of right conduct. “Offer unto God thanksgiving; and pay thy vows unto the most High: and call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me” (Psa. 50:14-15). In the process of offering sacrifice, the offerer was to learn God wanted obedience to and reliance upon Him. The Israelite was being instructed to make the Lord his God.
It is thus evident that an intelligent association with sacrifice was to involve an acknowledgment of right principles which were to be implemented in daily life. It was to teach us. Sacrifice is thus for our benefit, not for God’s.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One