Resurrectional Responsibility.
Debate At Essex Hall, London
Between brethren J.J. Andrew and R. Roberts
April 3rd and 5th, 1894
Chairman — Brother Lake.
SECOND NIGHT.
The Chairman (Brother Lake): I will read again, brethren and sisters, the subject of debate, and the conditions of same. The subject is “That resurrection to the judgment seat of Christ will comprise some who have not been justified by the blood of Christ.” The time this evening will be occupied in this way. The first six quarters of an hour, either brother Roberts or brother Andrew may speak or question the other. The last two quarters of an hour to be filled with speeches.
I now call upon brother Roberts to open tonight’s discussion by questioning brother Andrew or a speech.
Brother Roberts: Dear brethren and sisters, I am afraid that in the dust raised by our somewhat hurly-burly proceeding on Tuesday evening, the general outline of the argument was obscured from view, and I will make use of the brief quarter of an hour at my disposal now to bring it into view, so that the bearing of the questions and answers may be perceived.
Brother Andrew contends that no man, however much deserving of punishment, can come forth to the resurrection of condemnation, unless he first be released from the sentence of death hereditarily derived from Adam; that that sentence bars the way — that so long as it is on, he cannot rise, and he must remain in the grave.
The first answer to that is, that it must be wrong because it is in collision with the fact that men in that position have already been raised by God himself. The resurrection of such shows that God does not regard the Adamic sentence as a barrier if His purpose in any case require the coming again to life of any son of Adam.
The second objection is that the view involves the moral enormity that of two men, both deserving punishment, one deserving it a little and the other deserving it more, the one who deserves it the more is left unpunished, and the other only comes forth to the anguish of the second death.
We can realize such a doctrine in its practical application perhaps better than putting it abstractly. Suppose you have two sons, William and Henry. They both grow up to manhood, and they both know God’s demands in the Gospel. William recognizes that if he accedes to these commands, it will be highly inconvenient for him in a variety of ways, interfere with his business, interfere with his pleasure and advantage, and he deliberately says, “I will have nothing to do with it. I know it is God’s will, but that is nothing to me.” Henry knowing the same says, “Yes, it is God’s command. The Word of God has come to me and I will try to obey it.” He submits to Christ in putting on his name in baptism and in the undertaking of his service. In the course of time he is overcome, falls away. The resurrection comes. You are there and you see Henry and you do not see William. You say, “Henry, my lad, you tried your best, you failed, and here you are. Where is William? He defied God out and out, and he is not here.” That illustrates the second point, the moral enormity. It is an imputation against God, who is just and true in all His ways.
The next answer is, that brother Andrew’s idea cannot be right, because the enemies of Christ who hated him, who disbelieved in him, who rejected him, are to come forth to be condemned by him, and to be punished by him. Brother Andrew says, Yes, but they were justified from sin by the sacrifices under the law, retrospectively acted upon by Christ’s death. I say, What! Brother Andrew? Is it possible that men who hate Christ, that have no faith in him, that refuse to submit to him, can be justified by his blood, which means reconciled, which means brought into favor, which means to stand in God’s grace? Brother Andrew himself was appalled at the issue. If he said “Yes, they can,” then he committed himself to this monstrous idea, that the enemies and rejectors of Christ are reconciled by his blood. And if he said “No,” then he was obliged to admit that men not justified by his blood will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. He saw the dilemma, and therefore he did not go straight to it. He would not say yes or no, but compelled me to do a little of that shouting which is the result of physical weakness and for which I apologize, and which I never indulge in except through stress of that kind, where there is a refusal to meet the naked issues of truth.
Now, I wish to show that brother Andrew’s idea is entirely wrong, that the law of Moses in none of its appointments had any power to justify men from their sins or release them from death, and in taking very confident and absolutely strong ground there, I am not advocating a theory of my own. I am not going all round gathering remote and nebulous inferences from obscure facts and trying to weave them into a consistent theory. I rely upon the explicit assertions of Paul, who was guided by the Spirit of God.
To his statements I call your attention. They are not few, and they are not ambiguous. “By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight.” Thus we read in Rom. 3:20, “If righteousness,” or justification, “come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain” (Gal. 2:21). “A man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ . . . for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified” (verse 16). “As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident.” That is a direct negation of the contention.
Now the question is, what was the law given for? Brethren and sisters, for a purpose that of itself entirely excludes the possibility of the very thing that brother Andrew is contending for. Not that they might be saved, but that they might be condemned. “What the law saith it saith to them that are under the law,” not in the sense of keeping the Gentiles out of its benefits as brother Andrew suggested, but that Israel also, the very seed of Abraham, might be brought under condemnation — “that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God.” Not the Gentiles only — the Gentiles were already condemned — the Jews as the seed of Abraham had a possible position of justification. The law came to condemn them. It is so written. I will read the statements. “The law entered that the offence might abound” (Rom. 5:20). The law is a “ministration of death.” The law is a “ministration of condemnation.” These two statements are both made in 2 Cor. 3:7, 9. “The law worketh wrath.” “By the law is the knowledge of sin.” “I had not known sin but by the law.” The law was given that sin might appear “exceeding sinful.” All these are apostolic declarations.
On the face of them, they may appear strange. At first sight, it is scarcely intelligible that God should give a law for such a purpose, but when the fact is taken in connection with the plan of which the law was a part, it appears in a different light. We then see the plan as a whole. Brethren and sisters, we must take this subject as a whole, and not in bits. It is through doing it in bits that brother Andrew is making his mistakes. The plan as a whole is outlined in one of these statements. “The law entered that the offence might abound, that where sin abounded, grace might much more abound.” “He hath concluded all under sin, that He might have mercy upon all.”
Brother Andrew: I desire to supplement what was said on Tuesday concerning the expression “I never knew you.” The word “knew” in the Greek and English is an elastic word. Sometimes it means a mere matter of knowing facts; at other times it has a more comprehensive meaning. An illustration of the latter occurs in John 17:3, “This is life eternal, that they might know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou has sent.” To “know” here is not the mere knowledge of a fact; it embraces an understanding of God and His Son, and all that follows from that understanding.
Then in regard to the Greek word, it is defined as follows in Liddell and Scott’s Lexicon: “To know, perceive, to gain knowledge of, mark, person or things, to be aware of, understand.” Secondly, in Attic prose, “to examine, form an opinion, to decide upon, determine, approve.” Evidently, the secondary meaning is the one Christ had in his mind then. He did not use it as a mere matter of knowing that these ones who claimed to be his disciples were such, but that in consequence of their unfaithfulness he would declare to them that he never approved of them.
I think in the confusion last Tuesday there was one question which I did not fully answer, and that was something to this effect. Can you mention any wicked or unfaithful man in the Old Testament who was justified through the blood of Christ? It is not, as suggested by brother Roberts, that I was appalled by that or any other question, and that I saw the dilemma which was involved. I was actuated solely by a desire to be explicit, and to show in what sense I understood that which was involved in the question. I will now state it again, or more completely. First of all I gave this brief answer to the question: That all the unfaithful in the Abrahamic covenant previous to the time of Christ, were justified in shadow during the time that they lived, and that that was subsequently ratified by the blood of Christ. As regards the enemies to which attention has been called, last Tuesday I pointed out, in answer to the questions, that it was not necessary at that time to believe in the blood of Christ, that the twelve apostles themselves did not believe or understand it, and yet they were accounted as “clean” (John 13:10). It was necessary for Jews to believe in the Abrahamic covenant, and to believe in resurrection as a preliminary to the fulfillment of that covenant; they did so believe, and they partook of justification in shadow through circumcision, and the sacrifices which they offered up. Therefore the argument that because they hated Christ and had no faith in Him is pointless. They hated him because he did not realize their expectations, and their hatred brought upon them condemnation in addition to that which they had previously incurred through disobedience to the Mosaic law.
The passages which have been quoted in regard to the deeds of the law not justifying are not at all at variance with my contention. I never did contend that the deeds of the law of themselves could justify or that the sacrifices and other ceremonies could of themselves justify. My contention has been that that justification was in shadow, just in the same way as Christ’s own circumcision on the eighth day was in shadow, but that these things were subsequently confirmed by the blood of Christ when he died and rose from the dead.
Brother Andrew Questions Brother Roberts.
429. And now I will ask brother Roberts whether he believes that David and other faithful men who lived under the law of Moses are included in this expression in Rev. 7:14, “These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb?” Answer: Yes.
430. Were not David and those faithful ones justified, or will they not at that time have been justified from their sins by the blood of Christ? Answer: I have never raised any objection to the faithful; my objection was to wicked men.
431. Does not that justification include justification from the Adamic condemnation which they inherited? Answer: Are you speaking of the righteous or the wicked?
432. I am speaking of the righteous. Answer: I have no issue with you as to the righteous.
433. Still, I would like a more specific answer. Answer: That is the fact. It is on the wicked we differ.
434. Are not wicked and righteous both in the same condition before they came into reconciliation with God? Answer: Unquestionably.
435. Then as to the faithful who lived under the law, did not they at birth require justification from the condemnation which they inherited from Adam? Answer: You limit your question too narrowly.
436. Never mind whether it is narrow. It is a question. Answer: A baby has no spiritual relations whatever.
437. Does not a baby require justification? Answer: You cannot justify a baby.
438. Then how is it that Jewish male babies were subjected at eight days of age to circumcision? Answer: God chose to establish that as a token of His covenant with them as a nation.
439. Was not that a justification in shadow? Answer: What do you mean by a justification in shadow?
440. Was it not a justification in shadow from the sin nature which the child possessed? Answer: What do you mean by “in shadow”?
441. In contradiction to substance. Answer: Do you mean reality?
442. Well, reality in Christ. Answer: Then I do not know a justification that is not real.
443. Was there not justification under the Mosaic law in shadow in any way whatever? Answer: What do you mean by justification in shadow? I do not know such a thing. That is one of your inventions.
444. Was there not atonement in shadow? Answer: The same remark applies.
445. Is not the word atonement used in reference to the Mosaic sacrifices? Answer: Yes.
446. Then when these sacrifices, which are described as atonement, were offered up, was there not atonement in shadow? Answer: No, the atonement was real to the extent to which it went.
447. And is not that the same as atonement in shadow? Answer: I do not know what you mean by atonement in shadow.
448. I mean a representation of the reality that was coming? Answer: If you mean a prophecy I can understand it.
449. I mean more than a prophecy. Answer: Then we do not agree.
450. Then there is a vital difference? Answer: Yes.
451. In Heb. 9:13, we read, “If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” What is meant there by the blood of bulls and goats sanctifying to the purifying of the flesh? Answer: Establishing a legal cleanness from uncleanness created by the law of Moses, which was a fictitious thing.
452. Legal cleanness? Answer: Yes.
453. Was all the uncleanness which was the subject of a cleansing ceremony under the law of Moses, a fictitious thing? Answer: No.
454. Was there any uncleanness which was not fictitious? Answer: Yes.
455. Will you mention some? Answer: The uncleanness of nature, as involved in child-birth, for example.
456. That was not fictitious. Is it not the unclean nature spoken of here, when the apostle says, “The blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh”? Answer: Impossible, for the law never did cleanse sin nature.
457. Never did cleanse sin nature? Answer: The cleansing of sin nature is reserved for the resurrection.
458. Is not this statement made in reference to the law? Answer: Yes.
459. Then what was the nature or effect of the purifying of the flesh which is spoken of here? Answer: Those who were purified were recognized as legally clean. It was a shadow cleanness — all types and shadows.
460. All types and shadows, but there was a legal cleanness? Answer: In the sense in question it was real — a really recognized legal cleanness.
461. That related to the flesh? Answer: Yes, as in the case of the leper. There it was both real and fictitious, but in the case of touching an unclean thing, it was fictitious.
462. Was not the uncleanness of the flesh a real thing? Answer: Yes.
463. Then if the uncleanness of the flesh was a real thing, is not the uncleanness of the flesh, which the apostle speaks of here, a real thing? Answer: He does not speak of it. That passage just draws the distinction that is before my mind. There is a great difference between the law and Christ.
464. Is not the purification of fleshly uncleanness involved in verse 14? Answer: Read it.
465. “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God.” Answer: There is not a passage in the New Testament that more completely disproves your contention. Paul draws a distinction between the ceremonial purification of the law and the spiritual purification achieved in Christ.
466. Does not “how much more” mean in addition to? Answer: No.
467. Does not “how much more” include the purification of the flesh as well as purging the conscience? Answer: No; it is a comparison of two things.
468. Then if the flesh under the law was unclean, and required a shadowy purification, where was the shadow, or, where was the prophecy, if you so like it, in regard to Christ, if our nature does not require cleansing through bloodshedding? Answer: Our nature does require cleansing. It will be cleansed at the resurrection, and that will be because of Christ’s obedience unto death.
469. By immortalization, do you mean? Answer: Unquestionably; it is not cleansed until then.
Brother Roberts Questions Brother Andrew.
470. Brother Andrew, are men who “die in their sins” justified from them? Answer: Do you mean those out of Christ?
471. I mean just what I say. Answer: Men who die in their sins I understand to be men who die in Adam.
472. I have not asked that. Please answer the question. Answer: Then I must ask for it to be defined, and I will give a specific answer.
473. Do men who die in their sins die in a state of justification? Answer: That expression is used by Paul in regard to those out of Christ — men who die in Adam.
474. Quite so. I have not forgotten that. Answer the question. Do men who die in their sins, die in a justified state? Answer: Not out of Christ.
475. Very well. Do you not know that Jesus said of the Pharisees, “Except ye believe that I am he ye shall die in your sins?” Answer: Yes.
476. Did he not also say that they should give an account in the day of judgment? Answer: Yes.
477. How, according to your theory, are these two things to be reconciled? Answer: Because they were unfaithful men who had partaken of justification, in shadow, from Adamic condemnation.
478. Excuse me, they “died in their sins?” Answer: Yes.
479. Not justified, how can they awake? Answer: They had become unjustified after being justified.
480. Did they lose it then? Answer: Lose justification?
481. Yes. Answer: They became unjustified.
482. By whatever means? Answer: Yes, they became unjust.
483. You said that is the meaning of unjust, those who lost justification? Answer: Yes.
484. How much better off is a man who has lost a thing than a man who has it not? Answer: In the long run he is no better, but in his relationship to God and Christ he is in a very different position.
485. How so, if his justification is absent, and that you say is needful for him to awake? Answer: Because of the justification in the first instance; on that basis he entered upon probation for eternal life; he was then “bought” from the power of the death that came through Adam; and his sins committed subsequently have not been the subject of adjudication.
486. Then you said, I think, that men were not justified by the blood of Christ until Christ had died? Answer: Yes.
487. Then what is the position of all who died before Christ? Answer: Those who died without having entered upon a probation for eternal life remain in the grave forever.
488. You say no men were justified before Christ shed his blood, and they died unjustified. If this is not correct, correct me. Answer: I do not quite catch your meaning.
489. It is very plain, brother Andrew. I will try and explain it. You said a man could not rise from the dead unless he was justified? Answer: Yes.
490. Now you say they died unjustified, and yet they are to rise. How is that? Answer: O, but there is a distinction between those who died previous to Christ’s coming without having entered upon a probation for eternal life, and those who did.
491. I am fixing your mind on the condition you express by justification? Answer: Yes.
492. I ask you were they justified or not when they died? Answer: Those who died without a probation were not, and will not rise.
493. That is not my question. Before Christ died were they justified? Answer: They were justified in shadow when they entered upon a probation for eternal life.
494. Is justification in shadow a justification in reality? Answer: No.
495. Does it require justification in reality to open the grave? Answer: Yes.
496. Then how can men come out of the ground who have no real justification? Answer: They cannot for the purpose of appearing before a tribunal that has to do with the dispensation of rewards and punishments.
497. I have not asked for any purpose; I did not qualify it in any way. I make it simple. You see you do not like its simplicity. Answer: I must qualify it.
498. Were they justified or not before Christ died? Answer: In shadow they were.
499. Is that real? Answer: No, but it is made real by the death and resurrection of Christ.
500. When? Answer: When Christ rose from the dead.
501. At the moment of their death, was that in force for them? Answer: No, only in shadow.
502. Then they died unjustified? Answer: Not unjustified entirely.
503. Excuse me, they were either justified or not. Answer: They died justified in shadow.
504. But that is not real? Answer: No.
505. It is the real that is necessary? Answer: Yes.
506. Then they died without being in the real state of justification that opens the grave? Answer: Now that you say real, I say yes. Previously you simply said justified, and, therefore, I qualified it by saying justified in shadow. You confuse me with the varied words of your questions.
507. It is the subject which confuses you. Did those who died before Christ’s death die justified or not? Answer: Not really.
508. Does it require real justification to come out of the grave? Answer: Yes, for judgment.
509. How can they come out if they have not had real justification? Answer: Because the justification effected through Christ’s blood ratified the shadow justification which they had before they died.
510. They had not got it when they died? Answer: They had a shadow justification. The shadow is transformed into reality when the real justification in Christ took place.
511. Yes, but my question relates to the time of their death. Answer: They had not real justification then.
512. Then how can they come out of the grave according to your theory seeing it requires real justification when a man dies? Answer: Because they had been justified through their sacrifices in anticipation of what Christ would do.
513. If so, they died really justified, did they not? Answer: There can be no reality in the matter until the justification in Christ has become a reality.
514. Then they died in a justification not real? Answer: Certainly.
515. Can a justification not real bring a man out of the grave? Answer: No.
516. Then they could not come out? Answer: Yes, they could.
517. Very well, we will leave that. I ask another question. Would Christ’s blood have been of any justifying effect without his resurrection. Answer: No.
518. Then where is the justification power of a sacrifice, with which no resurrection is connected? Answer: It had none except shadowy.
519. What is shadowy? Do not deal with clouds. Answer: Like the shadow of my hands on this wall.
520. It is a prophecy therefore. The real thing is your hand. Answer: That is so, but the shadow pictures the outline of the substance.
521. Is it a prophecy? Answer: It is more than a prophecy.
522. Then it was justification if it was justification. Answer: In shadow it was. It served for the time being. It is all that was necessary at that time.
523. You are aware, brother Andrew, how continually in the apostolic writings the demands of the truth when complied with are called “obedience.” I will read one or two illustrations of that. Answer: The act of baptism, you mean.
524. That is part of it. Answer: If you mean that, I will accept it without your reading.
525. I prefer to read it. I do not want to deal with shadows. The apostleship was instituted “for obedience to the faith,” Paul says, “among all nations” (Rom. 1:5). The Gospel was “made known to all nations for the obedience of faith” (16:26). He speaks of his ability “to make the GENTILES obedient, by word and deed.” He speaks of the Romans having “obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered to them.” We read of a great company of the priests who were “obedient to the faith.” Peter says they “purified their souls in obeying the truth.” Does not that imply that God had commanded the Gentiles something? Answer: Yes.
526. What did He command? Answer: To repent.
527. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: The command to obey? Certainly.
528. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: After belief.
529. Were they not bound to obey? Answer: After believing.
530. Were they bound to obey? Answer: Yes, after believing.
531. Did God send the command to believing nations? Answer: No.
532. Did He send a command to the nations: Answer: Oh, yes.
533. Is it not those to whom the command is sent that are bound to obey? Answer: Yes.
534. Were not the unbelieving nations bound to obey? Answer: Yes, after believing. I am obliged to put that in, or else it may be construed into obeying without belief.
535. Excuse me. God has commanded all men everywhere, has He not? Answer: Yes.
536. Is not that contrasted with times of ignorance? Answer: Yes.
537. Are not all men bound to obey when they know it? Answer: Yes.
538. Can they mock God with impunity? Answer: Not if He exercises His right.
539. Can they at all mock God with impunity? Answer: Not if He exercises His right.
540. Will He not exercise His right? Answer: He has not said so in the passage which you quote.
541. Has He said it anywhere else? Answer: He has not said so in reference to Gentiles.
542. Let us see. “What shall the end be of those who obey not the Gospel?” Answer: What passage is that from?
543. You do not dispute the words, do you? Answer: No, I want the connection.
544. You must remember it surely. It is in Peter. Is Peter a bad authority? Answer: No, but I want the connection. “For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel of God?” That is the disobedient under probation.
545. I am asking you a question. Answer: I thought I was answering it.
546. What shall the end be of them that obey not the Gospel? Answer: On those spoken of there it will be retribution.
547. When? Answer: At the judgment seat of Christ.
548. Is not their “end destruction?” Answer: Yes.
549. The enemies of the cross of Christ? Answer: Yes.
550. Are the enemies of Christ believers in Christ? Answer: Some of them have been.
551. “Enemies of the cross of Christ, whose end is destruction?” Answer: What passage is that from?
552. O, brother Andrew! surely you do not want to refer to it? Answer: I want the connection.
553. It is in Phil. 3:17-18, “For many walk, of whom I have told you often and now tell, even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ; whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.” Answer: That is unfaithful brethren.
