Home | About | Subscriptions | Contact us | Search
New this month | Back issues | Other publications | Other sites
Back to Special Issue contents

THE ATONEMENT

JOHN NICHOLLS

AS WITH ALL the first principles of the Truth, the churches of Christendom are astray over their understanding of the atonement. On a superficial level all might assent to the statement, ‘Christ died to save sinners’, but disagreements quickly arise when this simple statement is probed more deeply. Not only in Christendom, but also amongst Jewry, there is incorrect knowledge of how men, both Jews and Gentiles, will be reconciled to God. Inevitably, even in the Brotherhood, there have been conflicts over aspects of the atonement.(Footnote 1)

This article highlights eight major areas in which the Christadelphian understanding of the atonement is unique. The aim is to show the distinctiveness of Scripture teaching compared with some of the ideas of the various churches and sects. The points to be considered are:

1. Christ died as a representative man

Brother H. Sulley in his book on Ezekiel’s Temple has an interesting section on the atonement,(Footnote 2) and he suggests five reasons why Jesus could not have died as a substitute:

In contrast to the substitutionary theory, the true teaching that Christ died as a representative man places the forgiveness and mercy of God at the very heart of God’s scheme of reconciliation, harmonising with the psalmist’s declaration that God’s mercy is infinite, “as far as the east is from the west”, towards those that fear Him (Ps. 103:8-18). So the Apostle Paul said: “Christ died for the ungodly ... Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:6,8); and the Apostle Peter: “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust” (1 Pet. 3:18). Isaiah 53 frequently refers to the Lord as the sin-bearer, carrying our sorrows, wounded for our transgressions.

The whole emphasis of the Letter to the Hebrews is that Jesus had the condemned Adamic nature, that his temptations were the same as ours because he had to struggle to overcome them, yet in his case without sin. He was a wholly righteous representative of humanity, so that his death declared God’s righteousness in the condemnation of sin’s flesh (Rom. 8:3; 3:26). The blood of bulls and goats could not show God’s righteousness because they did not have sin’s flesh; nor could the death of any other member of the human race condemn sin’s flesh because all are sinners and have earned sin’s wages; but, uniquely, Christ’s death could highlight the Divine estimate of Adam’s condemned nature, worthy only of total repudiation and death.

The brazen serpent of Numbers 21 taught the same principle (Jno. 3:14); and also in the book of Numbers we find another illustration of this great truth in the slaughter of Zimri and Cozbi by the faithful Phinehas. Numbers 25:13 says that Phinehas “made an atonement for the children of Israel” by thrusting both Zimri and Cozbi through. As a result the plague which threatened to wipe out Israel was halted. The destruction of flesh was the basis on which God could show mercy to Israel.

The same is true of the sacrifice of Jesus, whom the apostle says has been “made ... sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5:21). He was born in the constitution of sin, but repelled any and every impulse within him contrary to the Father’s will. Hence in Christ’s death God could be justly reconciled to man (Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20-22). Because Christ was righteous, God could justly raise him from the dead and grant him everlasting life.

These teachings reflect the whole teaching of Scripture about God’s character: that He utterly repudiates sin, and yet is infinitely forgiving; that He has both severity and goodness; that He hates evil, but is full of mercy (Ex. 34:6,7; Hab. 1:13; Rom. 11:22).

2. Christ died to ratify the covenants of promise

If Christendom is astray on the character of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, it is almost totally ignorant of the key outcome of that sacrifice, which was to make possible the fulfilment of the covenants of promise concerning the seed. Way back in the Garden of Eden God declared that the woman’s seed would bruise the serpent’s head and, in the process of doing so, sustain a wound in his heel. This was a graphic illustration of the fact that the pre-eminent seed of the woman would triumph over sin’s flesh, but would in the process be disabled temporarily for three days and nights in the grave.

In a later revelation about the woman’s seed Abraham was told that both he and the seed would inherit the land for ever (Gen. 13:15). When the promise was renewed to him (Gen. 15:7) it prompted him to wonder how he, a mortal, sinful descendant of Adam, would obtain this everlasting inheritance. Hence his question: “Lord GOD (Yahweh), whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?” (v.8). The reply from God, and the incidents that followed, showed Abraham that without any doubt those promises would be made possible by acceptable sacrifice, that Yahweh Himself would make (Heb. cut) a covenant with Abraham to guarantee all that He had spoken (v. 18). A lamp of fire (v.17, mg.), representing the Spirit of God, that passed between the pieces of sacrificial animals showed Abraham that one provided by the power of God would seal the promises to him and his seed by sacrifice.

Later, when Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac in obedience to God’s request, we can see this with hindsight as a vivid, moving type of the sacrifice of Christ in harmony with the Father’s will—the total fulfilment of the prophetic statement that God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering” (Gen. 22:8). But the significant point lies in the angel’s words in Genesis 22:16-18:

“because thou hast done this thing, and not withheld thy son, thine only son: that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed My voice”.

The blessings of the covenant with Abraham and his seed were conditional upon acceptable sacrifice being offered, as Paul says in Romans 15:8: “Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers”; and in 2 Corinthians 1:20: “all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us”.

The promises to David too are shown to be contingent upon the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah. Right in the middle of giving David the promise of the seed and of an everlasting kingdom, God says through Nathan: “I will be his father, and he shall be My son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men” (2 Sam. 7:14). (Brother Thomas renders the last sentence: “Even in suffering for iniquity I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes due to the children of Adam”.(Footnote 3)) And then the promise is reiterated of his house and kingdom being established for ever (2 Sam. 7:16).

This brief consideration of the three great covenants, the one made in Eden, and the ones to Abraham and to David, shows that the sacrifice of Christ cannot be divorced from the promises of the seed, because the two are inseparably linked and contingent the one upon the other. The confirmation of the covenants was a primary purpose of the atonement.

3. Christ died to save himself

So far as this writer is aware, no other body apart from the Christadelphians teaches that the sacrifice of Christ was for himself first, that it might then be for others. That Christ benefitted from his own death is well supported by the Scriptures.(Footnote 4) Brother Roberts, in his masterly exposition of the atonement,(Footnote 5) cites and expounds two passages from Hebrews which explicitly connect Christ’s salvation from sin and death with his own sacrifice:

“Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant ...” (13:20); and: “neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12).

Brother Roberts also expounds the same theme in The Law of Moses,(Footnote 6) when he deals with the consecration of Aaron and his sons. Brother Roberts argues that all the holy things in the tabernacle—the altar, the mercy seat, the laver, the tabernacle itself, the veil, etc.—as well as Aaron, were atoned for by the sprinkling of blood. Since all these typified Christ, being “the patterns of things in the heavens” (Heb. 9:23), therefore he, too, was purified and cleansed by the blood of his own sacrifice.

When we go back to Leviticus 16, where God’s instructions regarding the Day of Atonement are given, it is very clear that Aaron had to offer for himself, as well as for his family and for the nation. Verse 6 says:

“And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself and make an atonement for himself and for his house”.

Similar instructions are given in verses 11, 17 and 24. When the tabernacle was completed and Aaron and his sons were consecrated, they “laid their hands upon the head of the bullock for the sin offering” (Lev. 8:14). In Leviticus 9 Aaron was charged with preparing the people for the final dedication of the tabernacle, when the glory of the Lord would descend upon it. Once again Aaron was commanded:

“offer thy sin offering, and thy burnt offering, and make an atonement for thyself and for the people” (v.7).

All these verses strengthen the point that, as the antitypical high priest, the Lord Jesus made atonement for and cleansed his sin’s flesh by his own perfect sacrifice. As Brother Roberts put it: “Christ’s death and resurrection lay between his mortal and immortal state, and therefore by these he has been purified”.

4. Christ is the great high priest

In Romans 5:10 Paul wrote: “if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life”. Reconciliation to God comes through the crucifixion of the flesh, but salvation comes through the work of an ever-living mediator. Earlier Paul had stated the same truth: Christ “was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25). The atoning work of Christ was not completed by his perfect sacrifice: his resurrection to be a high priest after the order of Melchizedek complements that sacrifice, and Paul says we are yet in our sins if Christ be not raised (1 Cor. 15:17).

God prepared Jesus for his work of priesthood by perfecting him through suffering and trial. In his discourse in the upper room, and on the way to Gethsemane, Jesus spoke of how his disciples should rejoice because he was going to his Father, from Whose side he would be able to care for them and mediate for them, and prepare abiding places for them in his Father’s house. Through the angels (1 Pet. 3:22) and through the Scriptures Jesus shapes the lives of his brethren and sisters in conformity with the Father’s will: “he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them” (Heb. 7:25). He is the one mediator (1 Tim. 2:5: Gk mesitēs, the one between) between God and men, able to succour them that are tempted, because he has suffered being tempted, and can provide the means of escape if we will avail ourselves of it. He is also the advocate (paraklētos) with the Father (1 Jno. 2:1), the one who comes alongside by means of the Scriptures, by his providential care, and by the power of his great example of obedience.

How different is the Scriptural picture of the work of the one great immortal Melchizedek priest from the ideas of priesthood held by the apostasy around us! Particularly we contrast the Roman Catholic system of many priests, confessionals (by which the papacy is able to see what its flock is doing and keep its grip on them), penances and absolutions—all aptly summarised by Daniel’s description of the little horn of the fourth beast: “eyes like the eyes of man” (7:8).

5. The law is our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ

To apostate Christendom God’s laws given through Moses, and particularly the sacrifices, are ‘spiritual junk’, and are of little use to the believer today. In the Truth, however, the study of the laws of sacrifice enlarges our understanding of the sacrifice of Christ. For example, if we look at some of the details of the sin offerings for the high priest described in Leviticus 4:1-12 we see that they are a close type of the great atoning sacrifice for sin made by our Master. A young bullock without blemish was brought before God, speaking of the commencement of the Lord’s ministry at the age of thirty, yet without sin. The bullock’s blood was sprinkled seven times in the holy place, speaking of the confirmation of the oath (covenant) of promise (‘seven’ and ‘oath’ are the same Hebrew word).

Other blood was placed on the altar, reminding us of his prayers (Heb. 5:7) and his intercession for others (Heb. 10:19). The remaining blood was poured out at the bottom of the altar, speaking of the dedication of his life’s energy to God. The burning of the fat (vv. 8-10) speaks of complete inward dedication (Ps. 51:6), whilst the taking of the skin, flesh, head, legs, inwards and dung outside the camp demonstrated that the Law could not consume flesh (Heb. 13:12). The placing of these items in a clean place pointed to the laying of Christ’s body in the sepulchre of Joseph of Arimathea, “wherein was never man yet laid” (Jno. 19:41). In the clean place the flesh was consumed, foreshadowing the change to spirit nature which occurred after the resurrection of the Lord from Joseph’s sepulchre. The Law is a rich treasure-house of such types and shadows that help to increase our appreciation of the atoning work of the Lord Jesus.(Footnote 7)

6. Baptism into the name of Christ

The apostles baptised believers of the Truth into the name of Jesus Christ, and declared that “there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Remission of sins is linked with the name (Acts 10:43; 2:38), and the apostles declared that God was taking out of the Gentiles “a people for His name” (Acts 15:14).

The name of Jesus, traced back to its Hebrew origin, means ‘He who shall be shall save’ (Brother Thomas’s translation), and is linked with the purpose of God summarised in His name Yahweh. God’s great purpose is to fill the earth with people like Himself—with natures and characters like His—so that He will ultimately be all and in all. We are baptised into “the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”, meaning we become, potentially, part of the Yahweh name, for Jesus is the Father manifested in His Son by Holy Spirit, or God manifested in flesh. Baptism into (not in) the name is the means by which the blood of Christ brings about the remission of the sins of the believer (Acts 22:16). It links us with the first one who has manifested God in the flesh, the shedding of whose blood brought remission of sins.

Brother Thomas spoke of baptism into the name in terms of the priestly work in the tabernacle: the believer “goes into the laver of the water, that he may approach the altar, Jesus, and be sprinkled by faith with his blood”.(Footnote 8) So far as this writer is aware, Christadelphians alone teach that baptism is into the name, as most denominations baptise in the name, that is, on behalf of Jesus, and fail to appreciate the importance of the name.

7. Sacrifices restored in the Kingdom

It is clear from several scriptures that animal sacrifices will be restored in the Kingdom. Peter when preaching the gospel spoke of “the times of restitution (restoration) of all things ... spoken by the ... prophets” (Acts 3:20,21). Jeremiah foretells the day when the Branch of righteousness rules over a restored, peaceful Jerusalem, and speaks of burnt offerings, oblations and sacrifices (Jer. 33:14-18). Other testimonies include Psalm 51:18,19, Isaiah 60:1,7 and Malachi 3:1-4. All these passages speak of offerings made in righteousness, and it was this element of righteousness that was lacking in the past, including the time of the return of the exiles from Babylon.

How can these prophecies be reconciled with the statement in Hebrews 10:12 that Christ has offered “one sacrifice for sins for ever”, and that the Mosaic offerings are no longer required by God? The assumption has to be that the animal sacrifices, like the bread and wine, will point backwards to Christ’s one great offering. Further, animal sacrifices will have a deterring influence against sin because, when properly offered, they will vividly warn offenders that they are worthy of death.

Even more striking is the prophecy in Ezekiel of the prince who offers sacrifice. This writer has no difficulty in equating him with the Lord Jesus, who said he would eat the Passover again in the Kingdom (Lk. 22:15.16). Ezekiel 45 describes how the prince offers sin offerings and keeps the Passover (vv. 17,21,22). The fact that Jesus does this, even though he is the immortal King of the earth, will be a powerful reminder to all that he was once a son of Adam and needed redemption from death. It will also be an example for the mortal population to follow.

8. The sacrifice of Christ should have an impact on us

However clear an understanding from the Scripture we may have about the atonement, it is of limited value if it does not influence our way of life. The sacrifice of Christ was a life’s work, and we see the perfection of his offering in his manner of life as recorded in the Gospels. He was perfected through suffering, as we must be.

We perhaps gain an insight into the love of God in providing Christ when we read the account of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. Father and son together cooperated to achieve that necessary sacrifice, that the promises might be sure—the Father with sadness, but firmness of purpose, the Son yielding in loving obedience to his Father’s every requirement. The glorious result was the upholding of the righteousness of the Father (note how in Romans 3:25,26 the phrase, “to declare His (God’s) righteousness” is repeated for emphasis) and the bringing to life again of His beloved Son.

The contemplation of the atonement should elevate our minds and way nearer to God’s and His Son’s, so that we are better Christadelphians. If not, the Word is not in both our heart and mind. A hallmark of Christ’s friends is their Christlike behaviour towards each other: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (Jno. 15:12-14). Such saints are the ones who will be kings and priests with Christ in his glorious Kingdom.

FOOTNOTES

1. A whole issue of The Testimony has been devoted to the atonement, including a history of dissent within the Brotherhood over the doctrine (Vol. 54 No.637, Jan. 1984).

2. H. Sulley, The Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy, 5th edition, 1949, Birmingham. pp. 236-50.

3. J. Thomas, Elpis Israel, 13th edition, 1942, Birmingham, pp. 302-3.

4. A recent article, “Did Christ Die for Himself as Well as for Others?” (W. J. Webster, The Testimony, Vol. 57 No. 675, Mar. 1987), is one of many which prove this point.

5. R. Roberts, The Blood of Christ: The Divine Scheme of Reconciliation or Atonement, as Originally Promulgated by the Apostles in the First Century. Birmingham, 1895.

6. R. Roberts, The Law of Moses, 6th edition, 1960, Birmingham, pp. 170-9.

7. Ibid., pp. 217-45. See also The Christadelphian Expositor: Leviticus, H. P. Mansfield.

8. J. Thomas. Eureka, Vol.1, 4th edition. Birmingham, 1899, p.283.

* One of the chief difficulties in preparing articles for this Special Issue has been to represent correctly the backdrop of the non-Christadelphian view in order to provide an adequate contrast to the Truth. Since in most areas there is a very broad spectrum of varying ideas it is very easy to overgeneralise or oversimplify.

Substitutionary atonement seems to be a case where it is easy to be unaware of the more sophisticated teaching of the ‘orthodox’. They do not believe in what we might call simple substitution, that is, the bodily death of Jesus instead of the bodily death of other men and women. They do not therefore accept the literal interpretation of the word ‘substitute’ as attacked by Brother Sulley, and consequently the first of his arguments does not apply in their case.

Their view is of course influenced by their understanding of the nature of man. Since man in their view is naturally immortal, death of the body as such is not the problem to be solved by the sacrifice of Christ. Rather it is the judgement of man in hell (or, as some of them would put it, the second death).

Christ’s substitution is seen as him dying bodily on the cross instead of them receiving adverse judgement and being subject to the second death. Since he is God, in their view, Christ’s death and suffering had infinite value for the salvation of the world and therefore was an adequate ransom. Of course, they destroy the apparent logic of this when they have to deny that God died on the cross.

We see therefore how dependent understanding of the atonement is upon understanding the nature of the participants, man and Christ. Brother Sulley’s first argument usefully disposes of the naive view of substitution, but there is more to it than that.–S.G.

Next Article in this Issue

Home | About | Subscriptions | Contact us | Search
New this month | Back issues | Other publications | Other sites
Back to Special Issue contents