Resurrectional Responsibility.
Debate At Essex Hall, London
Between brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts
April 3rd and 5th, 1894
Chairman — Brother Lake.
First Night. (Continued)
Brother Andrew Questions Brother Roberts.
74. Who are the “some” not justified by Christ’s blood who will be raised at (the) judgment seat? Answer: The enemies of Christ are one class.
75. Any other class? Answer: That is enough for you, is it not?
76. Quite enough.
77. Have you always held your present contention that enemies of Christ, or those outside Christ, will appear at the judgment seat? Answer: Always.
78. Without deviation or modification? Answer: Without deviation or modification.
79. Are all the descendants of Adam sinners by birth? Answer: Seeing that a child before it is born cannot sin, I must ask you to say in what sense you mean.
80. In the sense used by Paul in Rom. 5:19, “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” Answer: Yes, I believe that all mankind have come to be sinners in consequence of what Adam did. He was instrumental in introducing evil into the world, and all his descendants are sinners in consequence.
81. By birth? Answer: As a result of birth from him. There is a distinction there.
82. What is the distinction? Answer: The distinction lies here. Your question implies “in the act of being born,” whereas my answer is the state into which we are born, which is different.
83. Does your definition “into the state into which we are born” mean that they had to do something before they became sinners? Answer: They had to do something before they became sinners in the sense of transgressors.
84. I did not say in the sense of transgressors. Answer: I asked you to define your sense.
85. I defined the sense. Answer: You gave me a passage. You did not define it.
86. Very well. “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” It does not say became sinners, but “were made.” Answer: The terms are identical in the original, “became” and “were made,” “became flesh,” it is the same verb.
87. What became flesh? Answer: The Word became flesh.
88. Has man to do something to become flesh? Answer: I did not say man, I said the Word.
89. But we read the Word became flesh. Had Christ to do anything to become flesh? Answer: The Word had.
90. I am speaking of Christ. Answer: I am not.
91. The Word became flesh. Was not Christ made flesh? Answer: Well, that is a mere mode of description.
92. Was he “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4)? Answer: Yes.
93. Was he “made sin” (2 Cor. 5:21)? Answer: Yes.
94. Did he do anything himself in order to become such? Answer: He had to be born.
95. Did he do it himself? Answer: Do what himself?
96. Did he do that himself? Answer: Did he beget himself, do you mean?
97. Did he do anything in order to be made of a woman? Answer: O! brother Andrew, put me wise questions.
98. It is a question based upon your definition. Answer: No.
99. To be made is to become something. Answer: Your understanding of any statement must be in harmony with the facts, as you said, and the fact is a man cannot sin until he is a man.
100. The question is not whether a man can sin, but whether he was made or constituted a sinner by the offence of Adam. Answer: By Adam’s offence he was brought into such a state of things that his being a sinner was inevitable. That is the fact of the case, and you must harmonize the facts and your maxims.
101. That is not an answer to my question. The question is, are the descendants of Adam “sinners” by birth? Answer: Well, I have already answered that, and I shall be repeating myself to answer it again.
102. Have they “sinful flesh”? Answer: Yes, they have.
103. Is not that equivalent to saying they are “made sin” by the offence of Adam? Answer: Quite so, when you understand what is meant. Sinful flesh comes as a result of what he did.
104. By birth? A man, of course, has not to do something in order to be made of that “sinful flesh”? Answer: Certainly not; the question need not be put.
105. Men are sinners before they can do anything of themselves? Answer: That is a matter of technical description. Let us have the facts.
106. Is it necessary for the shedding of blood to take away the sinful condition associated with birth? Answer: The object of the shedding of blood was to declare God’s righteousness as the basis of His offer of forgiveness.
107. That is not an answer. Answer: Yes it is. It is Paul’s definition of the meaning of the shedding of blood.
108. Is it necessary to cleanse from the sinful condition which we all have by birth? Answer: Understood in the apostolic sense, yes.
109. What is the apostolic sense? Answer: I have defined it.
110. I ask for a further definition. Answer: The definition is that God required the shedding of the blood of transgressing human nature, before His majesty in the case was sufficiently vindicated for Him to receive us back, and forgive our sins because of our faith. It is a moral operation, physically expressed.
111. Is “sin in the flesh” the subject of justification through the blood of Christ? Answer: It will be ultimately.
112. Is it not now? Answer: No; we have it with us now.
113. Is that proof that it is not the subject of justification? Answer: It depends upon what you mean by justification; there are different kinds of justification, moral and physical.
114. I defined the term. I said “acquittal from actual or imputed guilt.” Answer: I take a much wider sweep than you. I take in all the Bible facts.
115. We will deal with one at a time. Answer: We must deal with all.
116. Let us deal with what we have before us. Answer: Our sins are put away first of all in being forgiven.
117. What do you mean by sins? Answer: The “wicked works” which Paul says alienated from God (Col. 1:21).
118. Are we not alienated from God before we commit a single wicked work? Answer: Not in the same sense.
119. Not in the same sense? Answer: No, we are members of a sinful stock which will certainly bring forth wicked works left to itself.
120. Is not the sinful condition which we have by nature in itself a cause of alienation from God? Answer: The whole human race is in a state of alienation from Him; it can only become reconciled by coming into harmony with Him, and sinful flesh cannot be in harmony with Him.
121. Is “sinful flesh” in itself the cause of alienation from God, before a single act has been committed? Answer: It is the root of the mischief.
122. Is it in itself a cause of alienation from God? Answer: As we cannot consider the thing in itself, the question cannot be narrowed in that way.
123. Why cannot we consider it in itself? Are there not human creatures born who die before they have committed a single act? Answer: Yes, they are mere bits of animal organism.
124. Were they not in a state of alienation from God at birth? Answer: Alienation is only applicable to those who are capable of reconciliation.
125. Is it not applicable to any who are unable to do right or wrong? Answer: No; it is a moral relation — not affirmable of an unconscious babe.
126. Then, if so, how is it that “sin in the flesh” requires justification which I understand you to have admitted? Answer: Because, brother Andrew, we are going to be saved and be made incorruptible, and we could not be made incorruptible if “sin in the flesh” was not put away by a change to incorruptibility.
127. Is there not a preceding justification from “sin in the flesh?” Answer: There comes first the sense which I defined; sins are forgiven.
128. I am not speaking of a man’s “wicked deeds.” I am speaking of “sin in the flesh.” Answer: There are two stages in the process of being saved — one a moral and one a physical; one having to do with the mind, and the other with the body. That is the distinction. We are not justified from the physical until the resurrection. We are justified from the moral now.
129. Are we not justified from “sin in the flesh” at the same time as from wicked deeds? Answer: That is your way of putting it. I put the facts: that God forgives our sins when we are baptized, and takes away sin in the flesh when we are changed.
130. In Eph. 2 we read, “And you hath he quickened who were dead in trespasses and sins.” What do you mean by “trespasses and sins?” Answer: “Wicked works.”
131. Does it include “sin in the flesh” or the offence of Adam? Answer: Certainly not.
132. When it says in the 3rd verse, “Ye were children of wrath,” it does not of course mean they were children of wrath then, because it is in the past tense? Answer: Yes.
133. Does it mean they were “children of wrath” previously? Answer: It means they were “by nature” such as became children of disobedience or wrath, such as sin, such as become transgressors.
134. Previous to baptism? Answer: Previous to baptism.
135. Were they not children of wrath in consequence of their nature? Answer: No doubt; I have already explained that.
136. In consequence of “sin in the flesh”? Answer: Yes, that is a mode of description: I prefer to understand things rather than to jingle phrases.
137. It is not a jingling of phrases at all. Are those who possess “sin in the flesh” and have not committed a single wicked thing, children of wrath? Answer: In the sense in which a young serpent would be an object of your repugnance: although it has not power to sting you, it will have bye and bye if it grows.
138. Is it not the subject of anger for its condition then? For its sinful nature? Answer: To be angry with a thing for its condition is absurd.
139. Do you then apply the term “nature” here to acts done subsequently? Answer: No, by nature they were that which they were, and they became so through Adam.
140. Were “Jews by nature” required to do anything to become Jews, or were they Jews by birth? Answer: Both.
141. Both? In Rom. 2:27 it says, “uncircumcision which is by nature.” Answer: That is, Gentilism.
142. Yes. Had they to do anything to become “uncircumcised by nature”? Answer: No.
143. Were they not uncircumcised by birth? Answer: Yes.
144. Then by parity of reasoning are not all of them “children of wrath” by birth? Answer: Subject to the right explanation, yes.
145. What is the correct explanation? Answer: That when they grow up, they are wicked.
146. But is not “sin in the flesh” in itself the subject of divine wrath? Answer: It is “sin in the flesh” only in the sense of being that which will lead to sin afterwards. It is the impulse, but kept in subjection, it ceases to be the cause of wrath.
147. Then is not “sin in the flesh” in itself under “condemnation” by God? Answer: God is angry with the wicked. You never read of Him being angry with a man or a beast in a passive sense.
148. For what was Christ condemned on the cross? Answer: For the sins of the world.
149. Was he not condemned for sin in his own flesh? Answer: He was part of the sin stock, and stood there as the representative of the whole race, that all might afterwards come to God through him in being crucified with him.
Brother Roberts Questions Brother Andrew.
150. Who are the synagogue of Satan, brother Andrew? Answer: That is the 2nd or 3rd of Revelation is it not?
151. You need not refer to it. You know where it is. Who are the synagogue of Satan? Answer: The brethren of Christ who had become unfaithful.
152. Were they Jews? Answer: Unfaithful.
153. Were they Jews? Answer: They said they were Jews, but because of unfaithfulness were not accounted as such.
154. What? Answer: They said they were Jews, which implied they were faithful Jews, but because of unfaithfulness they were not accounted as such.
155. Did they cease to be brethren then? Answer: No.
156. How did they cease to be Jews? Answer: That is an elliptical form of expression to describe unfaithfulness.
157. That is your assertion. It is “those who are not Jews, but do lie.” Answer: They claimed to be faithful Jews, but were not.
158. It does not say unfaithful Jews. It is those “who say they are Jews and ARE NOT, but do lie.” Answer: It is equivalent to having a name to live, but are dead.
159. Does Christ describe his brethren as the synagogue of Satan? Answer: Not while they continue faithful.
160. If they are not Jews, they are not brethren, are they? Answer: They are unfaithful brethren.
161. Excuse me, unfaithful Jews? Answer: Yes, unfaithful Jews.
162. But Jesus says they were not Jews. Answer: That is an elliptical statement.
163. That is your assertion. Jesus says they are not Jews, but do lie. Are they to be present at the judgment? Answer: Yes, and Jews living in the time of Christ.
164. Very well, Jews living at the time of Christ are to be present at the resurrection? Answer: Yes.
165. Are they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: These Jews?
166. No; the others you referred to, those living in the time of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the sacrifices they offered up, and these were subsequently ratified by the blood of Christ, because all who had entered upon a probation for eternal life were given to Christ by God.
167. Did these sacrifices have any virtue apart from that of Christ? Answer: None whatever.
168. How is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: Now?
169. Then; any time? Answer: The blood of Christ was brought to bear upon them, then, by their faith, in the first instance, and the offering up sacrifices for sin.
170. Did these persons have faith? Answer: They had faith at the commencement of their probation.
171. Excuse me, “I never knew you.” Had they faith? Answer: “Then will I profess unto you that I never knew you.” He will treat them as if he had not known them. It is not an absolute statement that he never knew them, but “I will profess unto you.” “I will treat you in consequence of your unfaithfulness to me as if I had never known you.”
172. Will he profess that which is not true? Answer: It is not a profession of that which is not true.
173. He says I never knew you. Answer: I will profess, I will treat you as if I never knew you.
174. Will he say that which is not true? Answer: No.
175. Do you know that the word profess means to declare, to proclaim, to state? Answer: Yes.
176. Will he state that which is not true? Answer: No.
177. Will he say I never knew you? Answer: He knew them in a certain sense.
178. He says I never knew you, and they are there to be judged? Answer: They are there through the sacrifices they offered up.
179. Are these sacrifices of any use without the blood of Christ? and how is the blood of Christ brought to bear? Answer: By God recognizing the sacrifice at the time, and subsequently ratifying them through the blood of Christ.
180. How does the ratification come to the person? Answer: How does the ratification come to the person?
181. Yes. Answer: By his having been introduced into the Abrahamic Covenant.
182. Is it not by faith? Answer: Now?
183. Excuse me, you are speaking of then — the ratification. Answer: Yes, by faith.
184. These had no faith. Answer: They had a certain faith.
185. “Children in whom there is no faith.” Answer: Faith in the particular things that were being imparted to them at that time. They had not faith in that which Christ preached.
186. Can a man be justified by the blood of Christ without having faith in it? Answer: Previous to it taking place?
187. Any time — before or after, yes or no? Can he be justified by the blood of Christ without having faith in it? Answer: He was justified by believing the promise, and by the sacrifices which he offered up, which was a shadow of that of Christ.
188. But those who offered the sacrifices and who rejected Christ, were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the sacrifices they offered.
189. Answer the question: Were they justified by the blood of Christ? Answer: They were justified by the sacrifice by which they entered upon their probation, and thereby they came under the justification of Christ when his blood had been shed.
190. Had those sacrifices any effect apart from Christ? Answer: No.
191. How then could they justify those who rejected Christ? Answer: Because they were under probation and in a state of responsibility toward God, and God transferred them to Christ when he shed his blood.
192. Transferred rebels? Answer: Yes.
193. That is a new doctrine. Answer: Is it?
194. Yes, quite. Why will God raise the unfaithful? Answer: Because they have been justified in the first instance from Adamic condemnation.
195. For what purpose will He raise them? Answer: Judgment.
196. With what object in the case of the unfaithful? Answer: They are raised to be judged.
197. But what is the object of the judgment? Answer: The judgment in their case will result in punishment.
198. Why are they punished? Answer: Because they were unfaithful.
199. Unfaithful to what? Answer: To the position of favor and responsibility in which they were placed.
200. Is it not because they were disobedient? Answer: The word “disobedience” may be taken as having two senses, and therefore I prefer not to use it. I must ask you to define the sense, because obedience is used in reference to the act of immersion, and it is also used in reference to the course of conduct pursued after immersion.
201. Precisely; is not disobedience the ground of punishment? Are they not raised because of disobedience? Answer: For their unfaithfulness.
202. For disobedience? Answer: For their disobedience subsequent to entering upon probation.
203. Is it not the fact that the punishment is for their disobedience? Answer: Yes.
204. Why should He punish them for disobedience? Answer: Because they deserve it, and because God had made known to them that they would be punished.
205. That is supplementary. Who are the disobedient? Answer: It depends in what sense you mean.
206. “Because of these things, the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience”? Answer: The world as a whole are sinners.
207. I have asked the question in a particular form. Answer: They are disobedient in the sense of being not obedient.
208. Are they not punished because they deserve punishment? Answer: The world as a whole deserves to be swept off the face of the earth.
209. We are speaking of a particular class, the children of disobedience. Answer: Who do you mean by them?
210. You have already recognized who I mean. Do not put it off. Answer: The unfaithful.
211. No, no. With regard to the unfaithful we have arrived at this point, that they are to be punished for their disobedience because they deserve it. Does not the world deserve punishment? Answer: The world deserves sweeping out of existence.
212. Does it not deserve punishment then? Answer: It receives punishment.
213. Does it deserve it? Answer: It deserves whatever God gives it.
214. Why hesitate? Does it deserve punishment? Answer: Certainly it does.
215. Will not God punish it? Answer: God is doing so.
216. Will He not in days to come? Answer: Those who are living at the time.
217. Why does He do it then? Answer: Because of their iniquity.
218. Yes, that will do. Then supposing Christ comes tomorrow, why of two sinners one of whom obeyed God in baptism, and another with equal knowledge refused to do so, why should God punish one and not the other? Answer: Because the punishment of the one is on the basis of the law, and the other is not under law.
219. Is it not the law in both cases that disobedience deserves punishment? Answer: One was under the law.
220. Is not that the law of the case? Answer: One sinned under law.
221. Is not that the law of the case, that he is punished because he deserves it? Answer: Because he sinned under law.
222. Because he deserves it? Answer: Because he deserves it by sinning under law.
223. You have admitted the other deserves it, too. Answer: Not the same punishment.
224. He deserves it? Answer: Not the same punishment.
225. Then does it not come to this, that you make God punish a man who obeyed Him a little, and let a man go free who would not obey Him at all? Answer: Suppose I do?
226. Then you accuse God of iniquity? Answer: I do not.
227. I will not push that further. Answer: I recognize the justice of God to the fullest extent.
228. I have no doubt you intend to do so. You think knowledge makes no difference in a man’s position as to responsibility? Answer: Without justification from Adamic condemnation, it does not give him a resurrection to the judgment-seat.
229. Why did God wink at time of ignorance? Answer: You refer to the statement that God did wink?
230. Why did He do so? Answer: Because He chose to overlook the iniquity that was committed in times of ignorance.
Brother Andrew Questions Brother Roberts.
231. In writing to the Colossians, Paul says: “You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses.” We have dealt with the expression “dead in sins” already, in Ephesians. You take those, of course, to be “wicked works” committed previous to baptism? Is that so? Answer: I have answered that question.
232. Then the expression “hath He quickened” applies to all that was previously dead, does it not? Answer: It defines the change that had taken place in the position of the persons referred to. Before, they were under the unquestioned dominion of death, but now they were placed in a position of having been forgiven their trespasses.
233. For the trespasses which had been the subject of forgiveness, could death hold them in the grave forever? Answer: Have I caught the question right?
234. Could death permanently reign over them for the sins which had been the subject of forgiveness? Answer: The subject of forgiveness?
235. Yes. Answer: Well, unless God chose to revoke His forgiveness because of their unfaithfulness, because Peter speaks of some who had forgotten they were purged from their old sins, and Paul, of some who had sold their birthright.
236. Does God withdraw forgiveness? Answer: In the sense of withdrawing His favor — sometimes.
237. Does He withdraw His favor for sins committed subsequently to forgiveness? Answer: In some cases certainly.
238. But forgiveness from the condemnation, or divine wrath, is that withdrawn for sins committed subsequently to forgiveness? Answer: I do not think that the offences of a previous time will be brought against men brought into judgment, except in the case of entire departure from the truth. God says that when a righteous man departs from righteousness, all his righteousness is forgotten. Forgiveness is part of his righteousness.
239. Whatever punishment is inflicted is for sins committed subsequent to forgiveness? Answer: Yes, I think so.
240. Well then, that would apply to whatever is the subject of justification, would it not? Answer: No doubt.
241. Is not “sin in the flesh” the subject of justification at baptism? Answer: No, it will be at the resurrection.
242. Is it not included in the quickening in this verse? Answer: Certainly not. “The body is still dead because of sin” (Rom. 8:10).
243. When the apostle says, “You being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh,” what does he mean by “the uncircumcision of your flesh?” Answer: He is writing of the Gentiles who formerly had no hope at all. They were more dead even than the Jews.
244. But does not the expression “sins” describe their wicked deeds? Answer: No doubt.
245. Then does not the expression “the uncircumcision of your flesh” describe their condition by birth or nature? Answer: Their Gentile state.
246. Does it not describe their condition by birth or nature? Answer: In the sense of my answer. They were formerly Gentiles who were called “the uncircumcision by that which is called the circumcision in the flesh made by hands” (Eph. 2:11).
247. Were they not in a state of death through the uncircumcision of their flesh? Answer: They were dead because of sin.
248. And is not that equivalent to saying through “the uncircumcision of your flesh?” Answer: That is a technicality.
249. Is it a Scriptural technicality? Answer: Yes, it has a meaning, but you are not putting the right meaning to it.
250. They were dead on account of sin. Is not sin spoken of here in the sense of wicked deeds, and the sin nature? Answer: Yes.
251. Then they were dead on account of both these things? Answer: No doubt, no doubt.
252. Then the quickening must have had reference to sin in both its forms? Answer: Certainly not, the “body is dead because of sin.” Paul said so to believers, and it is evident to anyone’s common sense. There is not the least change physically until the resurrection.
253. We are not dealing with physical change. Answer: I am, if you are not, in this matter.
254. That is the mistake you make. Answer: No, it is your mistake.
255. “You being dead in your sins, and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He quickened.” Is not quickening the antithesis to deadness? Answer: No doubt.
256. Does not quickening embrace all that is comprised in the deadness? Answer: No doubt.
257. Then it embraces wicked works and sinful nature? Answer: In the sense of the deadness, but the sense is this, they were dead in having no hope.
258. Were they not dead or under condemnation to death because of these things? Answer: No doubt, but not actually dead yet.
259. No, it was a state leading to death. Answer: Just so.
260. I am not speaking of the physical. Does not “sin in the flesh” defile the body? Answer: Since you cannot conceive of the body apart from “sin in the flesh,” it seems an absurd question.
261. If it is absurd, never mind, answer it. Answer: I cannot answer an absurd question.
262. Is not the body defiled? Answer: It is an unclean nature. I hope the change will come in the midst of some of these wrangles.
263. Is the body the subject of justification at the present time? Answer: No.
264. Then how does that which is defiled become holy? Answer: I do not know what you mean.
265. Does not the body of believers become holy at baptism? Answer: In a moral sense only, not a physical.
266. I do not mean physical. Answer: Very well.
267. Can it become holy morally, without the sin that defiles it being the subject of justification? Answer: In view of the two senses of sin which you have introduced, I must ask which you refer to.
268. I said “sin in the flesh.” Answer: You did not.
269. I beg your pardon. When it becomes holy, is not “sin in the flesh” which defiled it the subject of justification? Answer: No. “Sin in the flesh” is physical; justification from that is by the change that is to come at another stage, viz., at the resurrection. Justification is moral first, physical afterwards.
270. I am speaking about the moral. Is not “sin in the flesh” the subject of justification in a moral or legal sense (I think legal is better)? Answer: You are mixing up two terms. “Sin in the flesh” is a physical attribute, forgiveness is a moral relation. Do not confound the two things.
271. Have not wicked deeds a physical consequence? Answer: No doubt they have.
272. Is there not complete forgiveness for wicked deeds, without removal of the consequences of those deeds? Answer: That is too nebulous a question for me to answer.
273. Is it? I thought from what you had admitted it would be perfectly clear. Answer: Nay.
274. Are there not physical consequences from many wicked deeds? Answer: The question is too general.
275. A person gets drunk. Answer: That is a physical condition.
276. A course of drunkenness ruins the constitution. If one who has been an habitual drunkard during his life becomes Christ’s by immersion into his name, is not all his drunken course of life blotted out and forgiven? Answer: He is forgiven the sin of drunkenness.
277. But the physical effects are not removed? Answer: No.
278. But they are not counted against him? Answer: No, not his previous drunkenness.
279. In the same way by parity of reasoning is not the offence of Adam in regard to each individual the subject of justification at baptism, although its physical consequences are not affected? Answer: We are not held guilty of Adam’s offence.
280. Not legally? Answer: I do not wish to deal in shadowy terms. I prefer the naked substance of truth. Adam sinned and was condemned, and we as his children inherit the mortality which was the consequences. God does not hold us responsible for what he did, but our own sins.
281. Does it require the shedding of blood in order to cleanse us from it? Answer: The blood of Christ was shed in order to declare God’s righteousness. So Paul teaches (Rom. 3:25).
282. In order to cleanse us from sin in the flesh? Answer: I gave you the apostolic definition.
283. Give me yours. Answer: It was to declare God’s righteousness as the foundation upon which He would grant the remission of sins through His forbearance. It was a vindication of God’s dishonored majesty, for us to submit to as a condition of His favor, and not a mechanical process to cleanse us.
284. I perfectly recognize all you quote; the question is as to its meaning. Did Christ require to die for himself? Answer: In view of the work he came to do, Yes; but if there had been himself only, No.
285. He would not have had to die for himself? Answer: I have answered the question. He came as the representative of our condemned race to lay a foundation for our salvation, and for that reason it was needful he should take our nature and stand as our representative, and die as one of us, and we die with him in being baptized.
286. If he did not die for himself, did he not die purely as a substitute? Answer: By no means. He was of exactly the same stock and inherited the same consequences of Adam’s sin as we.
287. Was the shedding of his blood not necessary for himself apart from others? Answer: Since we cannot contemplate him apart from others, it is no use putting the question. He was one of the whole race.
288. You put it, if there had been no others his death would have been unnecessary? Answer: That is putting an abstract question which it is not convenient to discuss.
289. It may be inconvenient, but it is necessary. Answer: Since you cannot separate him from others, we cannot so consider him. Had he stood by himself — a new Adam — his position would have been totally different.
290. But did he not fulfil the Aaronic type of offering for himself and then for the sins of the people? Answer: No doubt.
291. What was it in relation to himself for which he had to shed his blood? Answer: He stood there as bearing the sins of his whole brethren.
292. Did he have the sin-nature himself as well as the sins of his brethren which required the offering of himself as a sacrifice? Answer: He had no sin except the possession of a nature which leads to sin; but which in him did not lead to sin.
293. Did it not require blood-shedding to cleanse him although it did not lead to sinning? Answer: In order to declare God’s righteousness is Paul’s explanation, which to me is the all-sufficient explanation, and to me profoundly philosophical. Any other is so much cloud of dust.
294. We do not want to take surface views of matters; that is why I ask these questions as to whether Christ’s own sin-nature required the shedding of blood to cleanse it. Answer: I have answered the question.
295. I insist upon a yes or no. Answer: What is it you ask me to say yes or no to?
296. Did Christ’s own sin nature require blood-shedding in order that he might be cleansed? Answer: As you cannot put him apart from others, it is no use asking the question.
