The Christadelphian August 1927, C.C. Walker

“Did Christ Die For Himself?”

As the result of current disputations we have received the following letter from sister M.:—

My Dear Brother,— Greeting in Christ Jesus. I am writing to ask you if it is true that you teach that Christ had to “die for himself.” I should like to hear what you believe concerning Christ’s death, as a certain brother is spreading it about that all Christadelphians teach this error.

All I can say is I myself never was taught it and I have never found such a thing in the scriptures. I always found that Christ “died for our sins according to the scriptures.” Jesus says himself that he “laid down his life for the sheep.” This brother says that Dr. Thomas and brother Roberts teach this error in their works. I have searched for it in their writings, but I cannot find it. I think this brother is being deceived, don’t you?

Answer to the Foregoing and Further Remarks

My Dear Sister—If by “die for himself” is meant “for himself earned ‘the wages of sin’ which is death,” then of course the answer is No. I do not so teach, neither do the scriptures. But if by “die for himself” is meant “became obedient unto death, that by his resurrection he might take his life again,” then of course the answer is Yes. I do so teach because the scriptures thus teach.

Though not a transgressor, Christ partook of our sin-and-death-stricken nature and therefore needed redemption therefrom as much as we do. And God’s commanded way of redemption was by sacrifice; therefore by death Christ must needs be saved out of death, and in that sense must “die for himself.” This is most plainly taught in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. He is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” He is the antitype of Abraham’s offering of Isaac and of his typical resurrection from the dead. He is the antitype of the serpent in the wilderness “lifted up” that serpent-bitten sinners looking upon him might live. It is because he first lives through this that they live. He was “given for a covenant” and “his soul made an offering for sin,” that he might “prolong his days.” It is said of him that “with strong supplication and tears” he made prayer to God who was “able to save him from death, and was heard for his piety” (Heb. 5:17). All this was, of course, primarily “for himself.” And this was according to the type of the ritual (Lev. 9.). The high priest of Israel had “to offer up sacrifice first for his own sins and then for the people’s.” And this, says Paul of Jesus, “he did once when he offered up himself” (Heb. 7:27).

It is gloriously true, as you remind me, that “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures,” but in the context of this (1 Cor. 15:3, with verses 4 and 23) Paul affirms that he “rose again the third day according to the scriptures,” and that he has “become the first fruits of them that sleep.” Did he not rise “for himself”? Is not the first fruits the same as the last fruits?

Again it is perfectly true that he “laid down his life for the sheep.” But is he not himself “the Lamb of God” who lives for ever because of that? The fact of the matter is that unseemly disputation over these holy things is distracting and beclouding the brotherhood.

Brother Roberts’ teaching (in harmony with the above) is perfectly clear. I need only make extracts from The Blood of Christ to prove this. I took down the words from his own lips in 1895, a year or two before his death. After dwelling upon the apostolic reference to the “blood,” “body” and “death” of Christ, he speaks of the Truth versus substitution as follows:—

Christ Himself Benefited by His Own Death

Before attempting to exhibit this convergent harmony, let us notice one strong point of contrast between the popular and the scriptural view. The popular view is that Christ’s blood was shed that we might go free on the principle on which a man about to be beheaded has been supposed to go free if some one comes and takes his place. The day of execution arrives, and some strong lover of the doomed man rushes forward in the crowd, and says, “Behead me instead of him.” The proposal is accepted; the substitute is beheaded, and the other goes free: so Christ’s blood is shed, and we go free from our condemnation. Now this cannot be the right view, for this remarkable reason, that Christ himself is exhibited to us as coming under the beneficial operation of his own death, thus:—Heb. 13:20—“The God of peace, who brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, the great Shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” This is stated perhaps still more clearly in Heb. 9:12, in a passage we have already considered, but it has a new bearing here—“Neither by the blood of goats or calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.” You will observe that the two words “for us” are not in the original. They are added to the translation, and they are added in defiance of grammatical propriety. The verb is in the middle voice, and the meaning of that is remarkable in this connection. We have no middle voice in English: we have passive or active voice: you either do or are done to in English: but in Greek, there is another voice—a middle voice—a state of the verb in which you do a thing to yourself. “Having obtained in himself eternal redemption.” In Phil. 2:8 we have the idea more literally expressed—“He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him.” Orthodox conceptions of this subject leave no room for the idea that Christ was benefited by his own death, and exalted by reason of his submission.”—Pp. 9, 10.

Later, he is speaking of some who are “shocked” at the idea of Christ dying for himself. He says:—

No Need for being Shocked

Some say, “We are shocked at the idea of Christ being under the dominion of death in any sense or way.” Well, then, you must be shocked at what Paul says: “Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once; but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.” Thus it is the apostolic definition and declaration that death once had dominion over him. Surely, there is no need for being shocked, when the meaning of the matter is perceived. On the contrary the spiritual understanding can see and admire, and bow down, and worship through Christ, at the spectacle of God’s love advancing without the compromise of God’s dignity. Some people may say, “God is love, and does not stand upon His dignity.” What do such people think of this then?—”If ye offer the lame and the sick is it not evil? Offer it now unto thy governor: will he be pleased with thee or accept thy person? saith the Lord of Hosts.” “Cursed be the deceiver that hath in his flock a male, and voweth, and offereth unto the Lord a corrupt thing; for I am a great King, saith the Lord of hosts, and my name is dreadful among the heathen.” By which illustration—and it is God’s own illustration—we are let into the idea that God expects to be honoured as the first condition of acceptable approach, as He says, “A son honoureth his father and a servant his master. If then I be a father, where is mine honour? If I be a master, where is my fear?” It is a universal rule that etiquette must be observed in human intercourse; it is empty mostly, but there is a real etiquette which is essential. There are ways of acting that are inconsistent with authority. Here, then, is God, the great, the holy, the wise, the omnipotent; and here are we, the small, sinful, foolish, and the weak creatures of His hand, who have set Him at naught, and whom, if He were to stand upon His rights, He would destroy in a moment, and have nothing more to do with us. How can He be so kind and gracious and long-suffering, and permit us to approach Him, without vindicating His righteousness, and asserting His greatness? He cannot; He does not. It is in Christ crucified that we are invited. “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself,” but not without condemning sin in a federal representative. The human race is, as it were, crucified in His son. In Christ crucified, man is put down, man is killed; God is exalted and glorified.

Heaven’s Etiquette

This is Heaven’s etiquette, and the appointed manner of approach for sinners, combining supremacy and love. “I am a great King.” He will forgive and be forbearing if we bow down in the presence of His vindicated righteousness—a righteousness in which kindness and justice converge, which cannot be said for substitution. It would not be righteous to put to death one on whom death had no claims. It would not be kindness to say to us, “I will let you go free if that man will die.” The kindness, wisdom, and righteousness of God are all obscured by any idea of that sort; but the scriptural idea is a masterpiece, a triumph of divine wisdom. God says now: “If you will recognise your position, repent, and come under that man’s wing, I will receive you back to favour and forgive you. My righteousness has been declared in him; I have crowned him with everlasting days; because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, and was obedient unto death, I have crowned him with life eternal. It is in him for you if you will submit, and believe in him, and put on his name, which is a confession that you have no name of your own that will stand. Obey his commandments, and I will receive you and forgive you for his sake, and ye shall be my sons and daughters.”—Pp. 18, 19.

I hope the foregoing may be of some use to you.—Ed.