The Atonement As Typified In The Law

The Scape Goat

Answers To Correspondents

Objections Vs. Bible Proof

Doubts

Four Mottoes

How May Ways Of Salvation Are There?

Three Ways Of Salvation

THE ATONEMENT AS TYPIFIED IN THE LAW

For the Law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices, which they offered year by year continually, make the comers there unto perfect; for then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshipers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins; but in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sin every year; for it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins, wherefore when He (Jesus) cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me; in burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou has had no pleasure, then said I, lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God.” (Heb. 10:1-7). This is Paul's comment on the typical character of the law of the atonement; it was a “shadow,” only a shadow, not “the very image,” of “good things to come;” those “good things” began to be realized when Christ came to do God's will; then the real purpose of the atonement began to appear; and that purpose Paul indicates here as being to “take away sins,” which the blood of bulls and goats could not do. Let us turn to the law and see if we can get a clear understanding of this subject.

A full account of the ceremonies of the Atonement day will be found in Lev. 16 . I shall not attempt to explain in detail the typical significance of all these ceremonies; and for two reasons. First, I have not now the time, nor in the present number the space to fully discuss all the particulars of this subject as I should wish. Second, I am not sure that I understand the true significance of all the details of this type; of the general meaning of it I have no doubt, and this general meaning I wish to consider in the present article, leaving the discussion of some of the details to a future time.

The first fact to which I wish to call attention is that there is nothing said in all this legal ceremony of the penalty of sin; let this fact be particularly noted and well considered. In all the “orthodox” creeds and man-made theories of the atonement the great effort always is to show how through Christ's sacrifice and death the sinner may escape the penalty of sin. I have already shown in previous articles on this subject that this view is wholly wrong; now I would call attention to the fact that the law bears me out in this position. Here is one of the principle sources of error in the common view of this doctrine. With the majority of persons the prominent thought is, “I have sinned; there is a just and holy God who punishes sin; how shall I escape this punishment?” This is about as high as most men get in their moralizing, and their theory of the atonement is built upon this basis. Let it be further noticed in this connection that the monstrous doctrine of endless torment necessarily leads to this view of the atonement; if that is the punishment of sin then it must be that the main purpose and work of the atonement is to save man from that fearful doom. The punishment of endless, hopeless misery is so unspeakably awful, overshadowing and dwarfing to insignificance all other considerations that it is no wonder, in fact it is inevitable, that the question, how to escape such an appalling sentence, should be made the one central and most prominent feature in the theory of the atonement held by those who believe in this unscriptural, unreasonable and God dishonoring dogma.

If endless torment is the penalty of sin, then of course if anyone is to be saved, the sinner must not suffer that penalty at all; for if he does, it is to him total and absolute ruin without any possibility of recovery or deliverance; and yet the theory requires that someone must suffer this penalty in order to vindicate the outraged majesty of the law, and to satisfy the inflexible justice of God, hence arises the necessity of substitution; man the guilty sinner, if he is to be saved at all, cannot suffer this penalty; someone must suffer it; hence the theory absolutly requires that an innocent victim should suffer in man's stead; and yet this theory is made still more absurd and contradictory, and perfectly baffling to all reason and common sense by the fact that we are taught that after all Christ does not suffer the penalty of the sinner's transgression, but something else which is accepted as, in some way, equivalent to that penalty. Thus error leads to error; falsehood is built upon falsehood; absurdity upon absurdity; and the result is,— “Orthodoxy.” Now when one escapes from this great theological lie of endless torment, then, and not until then, can he begin to consider some other view of the atonement than that which makes the innocent Jesus suffer the penalty of sin in the guilty sinner's stead. I have already abundantly shown that this substitutionary theory of the atonement has not legitimately a singly passage of scripture to support it. There is not a passage in the Bible that teaches that Christ died to satisfy the justice of God, in the sense in which substitutionists claim. There is not one that teaches that he suffered the punishment of sin in the place of the guilty. The atonement that Christ made is not a provision whereby man may escape the punishment of sin. God's punishments are always good and for the benefit of the one punished, and it would be doing the sinner an injury to shield him from those punishments, if such a thing were possible. The atonement is the means provided for man's deliverance from sin, not from its penalty. “Christ came to put away SIN by the sacrifice of himself.” God can remit the penalty in whole or in part if he pleases without any sacrifice or substitute whatever. He has full pardoning power, like an earthly potentate; there is no such senseless rigidity to God's law that, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, He cannot control their execution, and modify their effect if there is any need of it. As a matter of fact, however, there is never any need to change his law or to modify the penalty, because “the law of the Lord is perfect,” and the chastenings of the Lord are good; no penalty is attached to any of God's laws that is not for the blessing of his creatures in the end. But God has made provision whereby man may reach a position where he can perfectly keep this perfect law, and hence though the penalty will still be there he will never become amenable to it, because he will never transgress the law. The reason why man cannot keep God's law now is because he is depraved, weakened, benighted and diseased by sin; man must be “delivered from this bondage of corruption” before he can “walk with God” as Enoch did, and the purpose of the atonement is this deliverance from sin. “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood he likewise took part in the same; [for what purpose?] that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death that is the devil, and deliver all them [see New Version] who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage” Is not this a worthier and higher purpose for the atonement than that of releasing the sinner from his well-merited and needed chastisement? What man needs is deliverance, not from the punishment of sin, but from sin itself, and this is what Christ, or rather “God in Christ,” does for us in the atonement; and this great and glorious purpose of the atonement is clearly indicated in the law, the shadow of good things to come.” There is not in this chapter or anywhere else where the subject is referred to, the least hint, or the most distant reference to the idea that the atonement was a means whereby the children of Israel were to be freed from the penalty of any broken law, or released from and merited punishment; if this is the purpose of the atonement as taught in the New Testament then it is surely a most remarkable thing that there is not the slightest allusion to any such thing in the typical atonement under the law. The law and “orthodoxy” are certainly at variance in this respect, but “the law and the testimony” (Isa. 8:20) are in perfect accord in this as in all things else. I have abundantly shown the import of the latter and now I call attention to the fact that the former is in full harmony therewith.

What then was the purpose of the atonement under the law? just exactly what was under the gospel,—to put away sin. We are distinctly told that the bullock and the two goats were a “sin offering,” that is to say they represented the sin that was to be “put away;” they did not represent the penalty, nor did they represent a substitute who was to receive the penalty in the place of the sinner, neither were they a gift to appease the one sinned against; but they represented the sin itself that was to be slain, destroyed and put away; the three animals were one sin offering, each one representing a different aspect of the same sin offering, and the antitype of all three, Aaron's bullock, “the Lord's goat,” and “the scape goat,” is Jesus Christ; all the sacrifices find their fulfillment in the Lord Jesus. Now, if I err not, here is the key to the proper understanding of the atonement in the type or antitype, in the law or the gospel, The victim represents the Sin. If we see this truth we shall readily understand that there is no need of the doctrine of substitution and no place for it in the atonement. Let us notice how this is still further indicated in the law. A sin offering was one that was considered as representing the sin of the transgressor, and as being charged with that sin, hence it was unclean, and the carcass, after the blood had been poured out at the altar, was to be burned “without the camp” as an unholy thing unfit to come into the midst of God's people, and the person who performed this duty of burning the dead and rejected carcass was himself unclean and must remain so for a certain time and until he had performed certain ceremonies; thus the sin offering, representing the sin of the offender, was looked upon as polluted and polluting; this fact is brought out in all the sin offerings, but especially in connection with

THE SCAPE GOAT.

The Hebrew word here rendered scape goat is Azazel (see margin of Leviticus 16:8) which literally means Averter; the scape goat was the Averter, i.e., he averted or warded off calamity from the children of Israel by bearing away their sins; the only possible cause of trouble and suffering in God's universe is sin; when sin is removed from us, when we are separated from our sins then all calamity is averted, because all possible cause of calamity is removed, hence the live goat was the Averter because it separated the children of Israel from all that could cause trouble and distress and thus averted, or warded off trouble and distress. “And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess upon him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness: and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities into a land not inhabited.” Here is the type; is it not plain that the sin offering represented the sin of the people? and what was done to the sin offering, whether slain or sent away, represents what will ultimately be done with sin? Let it be remembered that the scape goat is only another phase of one and the same sin offering and the character of all the sin offerings will be plain; just as the sin offering was destroyed or put away forever, so sm is to be destroyed and put away forever. The result of the atonement under the law was deliverance from sins (verse 30;) “On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sin before the Lord;” thus once a year they were legally reconciled (“set at-one,” Acts 7:26) to God by being delivered, not from the penalty of their sins, but from the sins themselves. “But it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins,” that was the type, only a “shadow of the good things to come,” a “figure of the true,” and yet a perfect shadow, a true figure, so that from the shadow we can clearly grasp the substance, from the figure we may understand “the heavenly things themselves.” Now see how perfectly the anti-type corresponds to the type as indicated in such passages as the following.

The Lord hath made the iniquity of us all to meet on him,” just as it did on the scape goat. (Isa. 3: 6, margin). Behold the Lamb of God which beareth away [like the scape goat again] the sin of the world” (John 1:29, margin).

“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” (Heb. 9:28).

“Who his own self bear our sins in his own body on the tree” (1 Pet. 2:24). He did not bear our penalty, the punishment of our sins as our substitute; but he bear our sins; in him our sins were destroyed; by him our sins were put away; He was made SIN for us. There is no more wonderful statement in the Bible than this; there is something dread and awful in it; the idea of a sinless person being made sin! he was not made a sinner or sinful; this could not be without destroying his character as the spotless lamb of God; but he was made sin itself; that hateful thing upon which God cannot look with the least degree of allowance. He was accursed (Gal. 3:13), and as an accursed and unclean thing he was carried without the camp and suffered as the dead, rejected sin offering, thus showing God's judgment on, and the final destiny of sin; it is a thing used in God's economy for a purpose (1-8-169) and when that purpose is accomplished it will come to an end, be utterly abolished, along with death and the grave, and God will be all in all, or in other words, all things will be reconciled to Him (Col. 1:20).

Here then in general is the symbolical significance of the atonement as set forth in the Law, and here in brief is the manner of its fulfilment in Christ the great antitype. The key to the understanding of the whole subject is to remember that the victim represents the sin; not the sinner, not the penalty, but the sin. If this fact is borne in mind, much misunderstanding and error will be avoided. In the type and in the antitype Sin is treated as though it were a tangible, real thing, and is killed, carried away and utterly destroyed clearly prefiguring the final result of redemption,—"No more anything accursed” (Rev. 22:3, N.V, Margin).

ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS.

As I still have many questions unanswered I will give space in one more number for their consideration.

A brother writes—"I like to read ‘The Spirit of the Word' though I cannot believe it all as you do, and am not satisfied in regard to the doctrine of Substitution. N. B. If God did not teach Abraham that doctrine in Gen. 22 what did he teach him, and what did it all signify? Please give us a direct reply.”

The chapter referred to is the one that tells us about Abraham offering up Isaac; and the brother seems to think that because the Lord finally supplied a ram for the sacrifice in the place of Isaac that therefore the doctrine of Substitution is taught. It is indeed a fact that God provided a ram as a substitute for Isaac as a sacrifice, but this gives no support whatever to the “orthodox” doctrine of Substitution; the brother mistakes entirely the typical significance of the various characters in this transaction. Like the case of Abraham, Hagar and Sarah, this also is an “allegory.” Abraham offering up his “only son,” represents God who gave his “only begotten Son” for the world”s redemption (See Rom. 4:17, margin). Isaac of course represents Christ, the promised “Seed (Gal. 3:16); now what or who does the ram represent who was substituted for Isaac as the sacrifice? if it indicates anything in the type, if it supports the idea of substitution in the atonement, it would indicate that Christ did not die at all but that something or someone else suffered in his stead, a theory of substitution that neither my brother nor any one else that I know of would favor; the fact is, that typically, Isaac is to be considered as having been actually offered up a sacrifice (Heb. 11:17), and raised from the dead, “from whence also Abraham received him in a figure” Heb. 11:19). There is certainly not the slightest support here for the“orthodox” doctrine of substitution.

In this connection I would add another word on the subject of

OBJECTIONS vs. BIBLE PROOF.

Years ago in my school days I learned this principle, applicable in all reasoning, viz. Mere objections against an argument do not invalidate, or even weaken that argument. There is no theory, proposition or doctrine in any department of human knowledge, however well established or widely believed, but that strong and sometimes even unanswerable objections may be brought against it; but these objections do not weaken the theory, proposition or doctrine, so long as the evidence or proof upon which they rest remains intact. I refer to this because honest, simple souls are sometimes beguiled into giving up a well established position simply because some formidable appearing objections are brought against it, while at the same time the proofs are unanswerable.

For instance, a certain doctrine is proved from plain scripture, say for example the doctrine of Probation after Death; it rests upon a good, solid, Bible basis; and yet apparently very strong objections may be brought against it; now shall my faith in the doctrine be abandoned or weakened because of these objections, even supposing I cannot answer them? certainly not, so long as the Bible proof remains firm. If any one wishes to overthrow that doctrine the proper way to do is, not to pile up objections against it, but to go to work and destroy the proof if they can; when that is done, the doctrine falls, and not until then. I had an illustration of this once in my own experience. When I first became interested in the truths set forth in “The Spirit of the Word” and while I was still a minister in the Methodist Episcopal church, I was one evening talking to a company of Christians on this doctrine of Probation after death, and I made the same statement that I have made many times since, and with increasing emphasis, that there was not a single passage of scripture that taught that physical death fixed our eternal destiny; several passages were quoted and we talked about them, and at last one brother, who was opposed to the doctrine, quoted John 8:21, “Ye shall die in your sins; whither I go ye cannot come.” I was new to these truths at that time, and had never thought of that passage in connection ‘with that doctrine, and I was for the time staggered; the passage seemed to teach that those who died in their sins could never come where Jesus was. I could not at the time harmonize the passage with the doctrine of a probation after death; and the brother who advanced it went away quite triumphant at the victory he had won over me; and yet my faith in the doctrine was not weakened in the least, for I knew it rested on a strong scriptural foundation, that neither that brother nor any one since has ever been able to shake. I could not answer his objection, but still I clung to the doctrine because the proof of it was not at all weakened by the objection. I went home from the meeting to consider the objection and it did not take much study to entirely break its force. In the first place I found that it did not say what it seemed to say; it seemed to teach that those who die in their sins can never come where Jesus is; but it does not say that. It says “Ye shall die in your sins,” a mere statement of fact which afterward came true, for those wicked Jews to whom he was talking did die in their sins; then Jesus states another fact, “whither I go ye cannot come;” he does not say, whither I go ye cannot come because ye shall die in your sins; neither does he say that they would never come to him, but simply, “whither I go ye cannot come.” Now we have no right to conclude from this statement that those who die in their sins will never come where Jesus is; the passage says not so; we may think it implies that, but that is merely our opinion and has no more authority than another man's opinion; let us beware how we “add to this book” (Rev. 22:18). A little further study on the passage made me certain that Christ did not intend to teach by these words anything like what the brother supposed, for I found in John 13:33, that Jesus makes a precisely similar statement to his own disciples. “Little children, yet a little while I am with you, ye shall seek me, and as I said unto the Jews whither I go ye cannot come so now I say to you.” Did Christ mean when he said this to the Jews that they should never come to him? if he did then he meant the same thing when he repeated the same words to his disciples. Surely he meant nothing of the kind; the disciples could not go whither he went, but he would “come again” to them (John 14: 3), as he would to the Jews (Rom. 11:25, 26), and to all the groaning and travailing creation, that is waiting with “earnest” expectation” for “the manifestation of the Sons of God” (Rom. 8:19), the promised “Seed” in whom all the families of the earth will be blessed by being turned “every one of them from their iniquities” (1-4-78). Thus the objection was entirely removed and another proof of the glorious doctrine of the “Restitution of all things” was found.

Now apply all this to the objection I have been noticing above against the true doctrine of the atonement, founded upon the type of Abraham offering up Isaac. The brother says he cannot believe this true doctrine is because the type seems to him to teach substitution. But can he answer the great array of solid scriptural proof that goes to establish this true doctrine, and to disprove the “orthodox” doctrine of substitution? If he cannot, then even though this objection might still stand in his way, apparently insurmountable, yet he should accept the doctrine as established by the evidence, and trust to time, and deeper study, and clearer light, to sweep away all objections.

Let me warn you, my friends, do not let any man snatch a well established truth away from you by a plausible or even a staggering objection. It is easy to make objections; and ofttimes it is very hard to clear them away. But even if you cannot answer the objections, you can turn on the objector and say, “I am not prepared now to reply to all your objections, but there is the doctrine, and there is the proof; can you shake that? until you can, the doctrine stands in spite of your objections.”I have referred to this principle before in connection with my answer to the brother in 1-10-225; that brother simply brings objections against the doctrines assailed without attempting to answer the proof of those doctrines; those objections are calculated to frighten a timid person away from the doctrines, even though the latter had the very best of evidence to establish them; the full acceptance of the great Bible doctrine that “all things are of God,” does lead to some very startling conclusions, as I have shown again and again in this paper; and although the doctrine is undoubtedly true yet these conclusions seem to some so utterly impossible (as for instance that God is responsible for the introduction of sin into the world and for the present wretched condition of things, etc.), that with the most glaring inconsistency they reject the doctrine even while they confess that they cannot shake the Bible evidence upon which it rests; this is mental and moral cowardice; we need not be afraid to accept what comes to us well accredited by scriptural testimony, let the consequences be what they may. The truth will always bear its own weight, and he who walks out upon it fearless and trusting, will find that it leads not to confusion, darkness and dishonor, as sometimes it seems as though it would, to order, light and glory, both to the follower of truth, and to the great God, the source of all truth.

I would again repeat that seemingly weighty objections can be brought against almost any position or doctrine; let them not disturb you or prevent you from accepting the doctrine if only the evidence is satisfactory. Sometimes apparently unanswerable objections will arise in our own minds against a doctrine which we feel is undoubtedly founded upon the truth. What shall we do? Shall we wait and waver until all our doubts and objections are removed? if we act thus we shall not be likely to become established in any truth. Accept what seems to you to be truth, according to the best light you have, all objections to the contrary notwithstanding, and if it is truth the objections will melt away like mists before the rising sun, and “then shall we know if we follow -on to know.” And yet there are many who will not do this; they doubt, they are uncertain, they have objections, and so they stand “halting between two opinions” and are never established, for "If ye will not believe surely ye shall not be established” (Isa. 7:9). Belief is not absolute knowledge. Here and now we know only in part; we see through a glass darkly; we walk by faith, not by sight; shall we therefore waver, and hesitate, and halt, and not walk at all, because we cannot be absolutely sure of the way? no; go forward according to the best light you have, and thou shalt come to know by following on to know. With many persons their great hindrance in the way of truth is

DOUBTS.

Christians have said to me concerning the truth set forth in “The Spirit of the Word,”—”It looks very beautiful; it seems like truth; I wish it were true; the proof seems unanswerable; it certainly harmonizes Scripture as no other view does, but”—and then come the objections, the doubts and uncertainties,—”but” this, and “but” that,—hindering them from fully accepting, to their comfort and spiritual advancement, what nevertheless seems to them good and beautiful and true. We must accept things on satisfactory evidence, even if there is some doubt about it; we should not wait to have every doubt and objection removed; if the proof seems clear and scriptural so that we can see no flaw in it, believe; in spite of doubts, “follow on,” and if the pathway “shines more and more” (Prov.4:18), then you may know that you are on the line of truth. But “if ye will not believe ye shall not be established;” if you do not follow on you shall not know; if you halt, and waver, and cavil, and object, then you will not advance at all, but the light that is in you will become darkness. There is hardly anything that we believe concerning which we can say, “I believe it without a doubt.” We should not believe blindly, neither should we refuse evidence; undue credulity is no more to be avoided than extreme skepticism; to refuse to accept, and to act upon, what is unanswerably established, is unreasonable and foolish. it is simply unbelief and distrust that ties us to the old ruts after we are convinced that the path of truth is elsewhere. “With the heart man believeth unto righteousness” (Rom. 10:10), not with the head; we cannot expect to have every intellectual doubt removed, and every objection answered, and our way made absolutely sure, until “that which is perfect is come,” and “we know fully even as we have been known fully” (1 Cor. 13. N.V. margin). Now “We walk by faith,” we “live by faith,” and “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1, N. V.). “We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken, we also believe, and therefore speak” (2 Cor. 4:13), and thus we “enter into rest” (Heb. 4:3). There is no other rest here except the rest of faith, and faith is not what the natural man would call certainty; and yet it will become to us more and more like certainty, as we follow on to know the Lord; “without faith it is impossible to please God,” and without faith we cannot be established, and hence we are in just the condition to be “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.” Let us rather be “Rooted and built up in Him, and established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving.” (Col.2: 7).

There is a maxim in the world which says, “Be sure you are right and then go ahead,” and some who do not think very deeply are persuaded that there is profound wisdom in this saying; but like many another worldly maxim it will not bear close examination; why, bless your heart, you would never go ahead at all, or anywhere else, if you always waited to be sure you were right. There are but very few things in this world, in fact scarcely anything, that we can say we are sure of, except we use the word in a very modified sense. Instead of the maxim I should say, “Decide according to the best light you have and then, whether you are sure or not, go ahead, trusting in God to lead you, praying with Elihu of old, “That which I see not, 0 Lord, teach thou me” (Job 34:32). Be deliberate, be cautious, accept nothing without proof, clear and convincing, but when a proposition comes to you backed up by such proof, so that you are convinced of its truth or even if there is clearly more evidence for than against it, accept it, and act accordingly; let your works correspond to your faith (1-3-65) and, if you are “of the truth” (John 18:37), you will speedily be assured by the result whether you are “walking in the truth” (2 John 4) or not “He that willeth to do his will shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17, N. V.). Remember that neither objections nor doubts invalidate evidence; proof cannot be over thrown by objections and doubts, but only by counter proof. I repeat this thought and emphasize it because many refuse to accept a position on the clearest evidence, because they can see objections to it, or have doubts concerning it, when they do not attempt or pretend to answer the proof that establishes it.

As a further illustration of the foregoing I will notice in this connection a criticism in “The World's Hope” upon the view advanced in this paper that the atoning death of Christ was when he laid down his pre-existent life, and not when he suffered physical death on the cross. I have abundantly shown both from the law and from the testimony that this view is the Bible truth. “The World's Hope” does not attempt to answer these proofs, but simply presents certain objections to this view and makes some unsupported assertions in favor of the position that the death by which we are reconciled to God was Christ's physical death. I do not refer to this in order to open a discussion upon this point with the above mentioned paper; but simply to illustrate what I have already said concerning objections, and to show how the truth is never injured but always advanced by investigation. “Ye can do nothing against the truth but for the truth” (2 Cor. 13:8); when opposition to a Bible doctrine makes its truthfulness more apparent, then my faith in it is strengthened and confirmed. Moreover the importance of this subject of the atoning death of Christ fully warrants a further reference to it. Several have written to me concerning it, asking questions and raising objections. What follows will, if I err not, answer these questions and clear away these objections.

In the first place I would say that no one who believes in the preexistence of Christ can deny that when Jesus became incarnate he laid down a life and took upon himself a condition which the Bible again and again calls death. When one lays down life and enters into death, he dies, and thus Christ died when he “was made flesh;” whether this death was the atoning death or not, it is certain that Christ did thus die. When I say that Christ laid down a life, I mean that he left a certain state or condition of life and entered into a totally different state or condition which in comparison with the former is called death. I do not know but that all life of every kind in its last analysis, in its essence, is the same; no human being has ever yet been able to tell what life is in itself, and I by no means attempt it; in the above position I simply take my stand on the plain and repeated teachings of the Bible. The preexistence of Christ is clearly taught. He was rich, he was glorious, in his pre-incarnate state; “he came down from heaven,” he became poor, he was made sin and a curse, and this state the Scriptures call death; hence I say that the view that Christ died in some sense when he became incarnate is certainly scriptural. Some of ‘my corespondents have expressed themselves “amazed” that I should speak of a person being both alive and dead at the same time; I can only say that any who object to this form of expression must settle the matter with Christ and the apostles, for they certainly did speak in this way (see 1-10-233). In previous articles I have given full proof that this fallen state is a condition death, and that Christ was in that condition while here in the flesh, and no amount of objections or assertions will overthrow that proof. Now we will examine the criticism of “The World's Hope” and other points that I wish to refer to will thereby be brought out.

“It is not clear,” says the “Hope,” “that Christ died by coming into this world. That was not death. There is no scriptural evidence that he either lost or left his divinity when he came in the flesh; it is not necessary to resort to such a position to defend the preexistence of Christ, ... He left a condition of glory by hiding himself, as it were, in humanity, ... God was manifest in the flesh— the divine in the human, instead of the divine dying. The divine cannot die; he brought his divinity into humanity.

In reply to this I would say it may not be clear to the editor of the “Hope” that Christ died by coming into the world, but it is clear to me that is the fact is the fact is clear—the plain teaching of the Bible, and though all the whys and wherefores of this fact may not be clear, yet we should accept the fact unless, as I have observed above, we can overthrow the evidence upon which it rests. When my brother said a little further on in the above quotation that when Christ became incarnate “he left a condition of glory by hiding himself, as it were, in humanity,” he admits all that it is needful to admit in order to establish the above fact whether it is “clear” to him or not. My brother will not deny, since he fully believes in the pre-existence of Christ, that that “condition of glory” which Christ left was an existence, a life; and he cannot deny that that “humanity” in which “he hid himself,” as the brother expresses it, is a condition which the Scriptures repeatedly denominate death; thus from his own words we conclude that Christ laid down life and entered into death, and it is very “clear” to me, and I should think it ought to be clear to everyone, that this is dying. Especially so when we know that Christ himself declared while here in the flesh, and before he was crucified, that he had already laid down the life which he would take up again when his trial was ended (1-3-53). I would say furthermore that I do not “resort to this position to defend the pre-existence of Christ; I never had any such thought; in fact the truth seems to me to be just the other way about, viz., that the pre-existence of Christ inevitably leads to this position; and that no one can consistently deny this position unless they also deny the pre-existence. If Christ did pre-exist, then he certainly did lay down a life when he became incarnate, and he did enter into a condition of death, and hence he did die; all this seems to me absolutely positive; however we may understand that death, or whatever place we may give it in our theology, a death there certainly was if Christ pre-existed.

Now another point; the brother uses the terms divinity and divine, in a very vague, obscure manner; I cannot certainly make out what he means by those terms; if I did not know something about his theological views, I should think that he used those terms in the usual “orthodox” sense, implying that Christ was both God and man, “Very God and very man,” as the creeds express it. He uses the terms as though he thought that the Divinity of Christ was an entity distinct from Christ himself ,—that when Christ came in the flesh, his Divinity came along with him, but his Divinity did not die, “the divine cannot die,” etc. This is by no means “clear” to me. The one meaning of divine as used in reference to Christ is, if I err not, godlike; this I have already fully shown (see 1-5-97). Of course Christ did not “leave” this or “lose” it when he became incarnate, nor did he leave or lose it at any time afterward. Christ's divinity (his godlikeness) has no existence separate from Christ himself, any more than a man's character has an existence separate from the man. Christ's divinity is not a thing that he could leave or lose unless he committed sin. Jesus was divine (Godlike) before he came in the flesh (he was “in the form of God” Phil.2:6), he was divine during his incarnation, for he came to reveal God to us (1-5-100) and he is forever divine. He is indeed “the express made of God,” perfectly divine. He was not absolutely God, the Father, but he was perfectly godlike. But all this has no bearing that I can see upon the question at issue. I yield to no one in my estimation of the absolute divinity of Christ; but that does not disprove, or indeed affect in any way, the position that Christ died when he became incarnate. Let us be careful to define our terms, and to use them according to definition, and not talk round and round to no purpose, using terms that to nine-tenths of our readers or hearers mean nothing, thus “darkening counsel by words without knowledge.” If the editor of the “Hope” uses the term divine in the sense of godlike, which is, I think, the Bible sense of the word, then his remarks in connection with that term have no force in the direction of the question under discussion; if he does not use the term in that sense I know not how lie uses it and hence I am at a loss how to meet him.

Now I will quote again from the “Hope.”

“‘Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and rose again the third day, according to the Scriptures.' If the spirit of the word locates his death at his coming in the flesh, then the time of his rising should agree with it. Did he rise again to his divine life the third day from his coming in the flesh?”

To this criticism I would reply, first, that even supposing I could not harmonize this Scripture with my position, the latter would not therefore be disproved, because of this very obvious principle of Bible interpretation, viz.:

Disconnected passages of Scripture cannot disprove a Bible doctrine, that is established by many passages, and by the general scope and teaching of the Word.

I venture to assert that no Bible doctrine whatever can be advanced that disconnected passages may not be found apparently bearing against it. We must decide Bible questions according to the preponderance of evidence, and according to the general drift of Bible teaching, after a thorough examination of the entire Word in connection with it; and after a Bible question is thus settled, it cannot be unsettled or disproved by an isolated passage here and there. Every Bible student, who searches the Scriptures, finds himself compelled to accept doctrines because of the great mass of evidence in their favor, while at the same time there are disconnected passages which he cannot satisfactorily harmnonize there to with; these inharmonious passages, however, should not be allowed to disprove the well established doctrine.

The neglect and violation of the above principle is one of the prime causes of the multiplicity of sects and denominations; multitudes of doctrines, absolutely opposed to one another, are built upon detached portions of Scripture, when if Christians were more careful to gather, and were willing to accept, the preponderating testimony of the Word, they would come much nearer to a “unity” of the faith.” I take this occasion to refer to this principle because I deem it very important, and I want to do what little I can to “thoroughly furnish” God's people (those who I am able to reach) “unto all good works.”

It is not difficult, however, to harmonize the passage referred to with my position. There is a sense in which Christ died physically “for our sins,” i.e., as the word rendered “for” signifies, for the sake of, because of, by reason of, on account of. Christ need not have died at all if it had not been for sin; he died two deaths (see explanation of Isa. 03:9, in 1-3-64), and both of them was on account of, or by reason of, sin. How his physical death was on account of sin will appear in my answer to the next quotation.

“It is not denied that it was a great condescension and humiliation on Christ's part to assume humanity. But the question is, was that the sacrifice for atonement?—even if it could be proved that the divine died, was that the death that reconciles? I think not. The real sacrifice needed for atonement, it will be admitted, was typified by the killing of a beast. Was that beast a type of Christ's pre-existent life?”

In this passage again the brother uses the term “divine” in the vague sense above noted. I do not think that the “divine” died, understanding the term as I have explained it; what the brother means by the word I can only conjecture. He seems to speak further as though it might be proved that Christ did die when he came in the flesh, and he says that the question is was that the death that reconciles, and he tries to show from the type that it was not. Now I claim that the type shows most cearly that it was. I do not think “the beast was a type of Christ's pre-existent life,” but the life (blood) of the beast that was sacrificed, and by which atonement was made (Lev. 17:11), represents the life that Jesus laid down for atonement, whatever life that was. Now then what life was it that Jesus sacrificed in order to make atonement? Was it his pre-incarnate life which he laid down when he became poor for our sakes? or was it his physical life which was “taken” from him (Acts 8:33) by the Jews? It seems to me that the mere asking of this question would irresistibly suggest the one answer to every thoughtful Bible student—viz., that it was his pre-incarnate life that Christ sacrificed in order to make the atonement; and that this is the true answer I have given abundant proof both in this paper and in preceding ones; but now let us ask again, does the type confirm this view? it most certainly does. In the type, the life of the beast was sacrificed to make atonement, and afterward the dead, unclean carcass was burned without the camp. Now in the antitype we know that the physical death of Christ was the fulfilment of this latter part of the type, i.e. the burning of the sin-polluted carcass without the camp; on this point there can be no question if the testimony of Heb. 12:11-13 is accepted; and if this be so then the atoning death of Christ to be in harmony with the type, must have been before his physical death on the cross; the latter could not possibly have been the death that reconciles, unless in the type the burning of the dead rejected body of the sin-offering without the camp was the atoning sacrifice. Does the editor of the “World’s Hope” take this latter view? If he were explaining to a Jew the typical significance of the law would he point to that burning of the dead carcass, “the skin, and the flesh, and the dung” (Lev. 26:27), as the atonement ceremony? He ought to, to be consistent, if he thinks that the atoning death of Christ was on the literal cross; and if he would not explain the type that way, but would look for the atoning sacrifice previous to the disposal of the dead carcass, then he is bound to make a corresponding change in his explanation of the antitype. Not only is it true that the type fully confirms the view of the death of Christ that I have presented, but in fact it will harmonize with no other view; the type drives us to this view; we are compelled by the type to look for the atoning death of Christ previous to his physical death “without the gates;” the latter was no part of the atonement ceremony proper, as we have seen; his atoning death must have been when he laid down his pre-incarnate life. I would call attention also in this connection to the incidental confirmation by the type of the position that some of my correspondents have called in question, that Christ while here in the flesh was in a condition of death; the animal burned without the camp had been previously killed and already dead; so Christ when he was “made flesh,” died, and during the entire period of his incarnation he was in a condition of death, hence his physical death “without the gates,” was a striking antitype to the burning of the dead sin-offering or sacrifice was so treated; so Christ, the antitype of the sin offering, died physically for our sins, i.e. because of them; but this physical death of Christ was not his death for atonement, i.e. reconciliation.

I will notice one more quotation from the “Hope.”

“The divine and the human in one person are essential to the perfect Saviour. Christ is thus both the antitypical Priest and Sacrifice. The divine destroys the enmity of the lower nature and also imparts his own higher nature.”

Here again is the vague, indeterminate use of the term “divine”; in the first sentence he speaks of the divine and the human in one person; in the second sentence he speaks as though the divine were a separate person, when he says, “the divine imparts his own higher nature.” The principle reason, however, why I introduce this quotation is for the sake of observing that Christ was not a Priest at all until after his resurrection; while he was “on earth (i.e. in the earthy condition) he could not be a priest.” (Heb. 8:4) “For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.: Jesus had not more right to exercise the priestly office while he was in the flesh than any other Jew outside of the tribe of Levi and not of the Aaronic order; after his resurrection he became a priest after a new order, that of Melchisedek; but while he was on earth, so far as the type of the atonement was concerned, he was nothing but the dead sin offering.

I have several more questions on this same subject which I shall try to answer in some future issue. I will close the present article by proposing the following Query– How does the physical death of Christ reconcile the world unto God? The Bible distinctly tells us that “we are reconciled to God by the death of his Son;” now will someone, who believes that the death here referred to was his physical death on the literal cross, please answer the above query, and I shall be glad to consider it.

A brother asks–“How can Gen. 5:1 (“In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him”) be harmonized with the view that Adam was not really created in the image and likeness of God as set forth in 1-1-14?

I do not know as I can make this subject any plainer than I have in the article referred to. Gen. 5:1, is no more positive and direct than Gen. 1:27. If the brother can see, as explained in that article, that in the latter passage God is “calling those things which be not as though they were,” then it seems to me he need have no difficulty in applying the same principle to the former passage; as a matter of fact, we know that God did not actually create man in his own image at that time, hence we must seek some explanation of the apparently untrue statement, that this principle clearly furnishes the explanation.

The same brother also asks a question about the new covenant, and the Mediator of that “better covenant” (Heb. 8:6). I have explained the term mediator in 1-9-197 and 1-10-220. I will leave the discussion of the Covenants to some future time when I shall try to fully consider the subject, as the importance of it demands.

Another brother writes, “You say that the day of Judgement is a day of rejoicing for the world. The apostle Peter says that “the heaven and earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” Is that the same day that you speak of? Sometimes passages of scripture come to mind that are hard to harmonize with your view of the judgement.”

The difficulty in harmonizing certain scriptures with the truth arises oftentimes from our previous education, and from the fact that we have not studied deeply enough. I see no difficulty in harmonizing the above passage with that view of the judgement presented in No. 6, I have partially explained this passage in 1-5-103. In regard to the last clause, I would say that because “the perdition (or destruction, as the word means) of ungodly men” is spoken of as taking place in “the day of judgment,” we have no need to conclude that all the wicked are to be forever destroyed in that day. We know that a man or a community of men may be utterly destroyed and yet be afterward recovered from that destruction, as witness the case of Sodom (1-6-129). In fact this is one of God’s methods; “He turneth man to destruction and saith return ye children of men” (Psa, 90:3; see also explanation of Psa. 83:16-18 in 1-6-127). In the Judgment day the final outcome will be blessings for the world, through some of the processes of Judgment will be most painful. The ungodly will certainly be destroyed at last, so that there will not be an ungodly one in all the world, “God shall be all in all,” but how will they be destroyed? Not by annihilating the individual, but by curing him of his ungodliness, and bringing him into harmony with God; or as Jude expresses it, Christ shall come with his saints “to convince all that are ungodly of all their ungodly deeds.” (Jude 14, 15) “The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave and bringeth up;” He maketh sore, and bindeth up; he woundeth, and his hands make whole;” “He turneth man to destruction, and saith return ye children of men;” “Come [then] and let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up.”

I would add furthermore that here is another instance where the principle already referred to in the present number should be applied.

Even supposing we could not harmonize this passage with the general teaching of the Bible in regard to the Judgment day, we should not therefor reject that general teaching. Accept the truth as it is set forth in the Bible as a whole and let isolated passages wait to be reconciled to this truth until further study, experience and light from heaven. There are a number of doctrines that I firmly hold to the joy and rejoicing of my heart, because I believe that the Bible as a whole fully supports them, and yet there are some passages that I cannot satisfactorily to myself harmonize with those doctrines.. I do not think that it is possible to lay too much emphasizes upon this point. If you want to get as near the truth as possible in this present imperfect state, beware of a partial applications of scripture; draw your conclusions for a consideration of the teachings of the entire Word upon any given subject, and then hold to those conclusions notwithstanding your inability to harmonize single passages therewith.

A sister asks concerning the use of the “again” in Matt. 17:9–“until the Son of man be risen again from the dead”–as though he had risen once and was to rise again. The word would be omitted; it is omitted from the New Version; also from the Emphatic Diaglott, from Rotherham’s New Testament, and from Young’s Translation; there is no doubt but that the introduction of the word into the text is a mistake. This is also true on the above authority of the same word in Rev. 20:5, where it should also be omitted.

A brother writes–“I am preaching the doctrine of restitution and God is blessing my labors; now if I should wish to form an association of those who believe as we do what course will I pursue?”

I would answer, Don’t do it; don’t form any association. If “the love of the truth” will not hold you together, nothing will. If you posses “the unity of the spirit” (Eph. 4:3) you do not need outward organization; if you have not that unity, organization is worse than useless, it is positively harmful, because it fosters the sectarian spirit. Do not form a sect, but cultivate the pilgrim spirit; “here the follower of Christ has no continuing city;” he is not of this world; his citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20, N.V.) and moreover, “The Judge standeth at the door,: therefore, Say ye not a confederacy” (Isa. 8:12).

FOUR MOTTOES.

1. What's mine is my own, and what's thine shall be mine.
   

   This is robbery.

2. What's mine is my own, and what's thine is thine own.
   

   This is worldly honesty.

3. What's mine is thine, and what's thine is mine.
   

   This is communism; the fancied heaven of the natural man.

4. What's mine is thine, and what's thine may still be thine.

This is Love; the only way to become possessed of all things is by surrendering all things. “Having nothing and yet possessing all things.” “Whosoever will be chiefest, shall be servant of all.”

HOW MANY WAYS OF SALVATION ARE THERE?

Suppose you should ask the above question of almost any Christian; he would probably answer promptly, “One, ‘repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ';” or he might quote Acts 4:10-12, where we are told that “there is no salvation” except “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth;” and no Christian could take exception to this answer; it is without doubt the true scriptural answer. But now suppose you should ask the same Christian—"Do you believe that all who die in infancy will be saved?” He would probably answer just as promptly as before, “Yes.” Then you ask, “How are they saved?” The reply would be something like the following; “Why of course they will be saved; they never have done anything wrong, they are pure and innocent, Christ died for them, and he said, ‘of such is the kingdom of heaven' so of course they will be saved." But did you ever think that this is a second method of salvation totally distinct from the first scriptural method. Infants are not saved on repentance and faith; they need no repentance and they are not capable of faith, they are saved then according to this second method entirely unconditionally. Probably on an average since the creation of man, half of the human family have died in infancy (authorities tell us that at the present time two-thirds die in infancy); these have all gone to heaven, according to the “orthodox” view; that is to say half of the human race is saved absolutely unconditionally without being exposed to any risk whatever of being lost. If ones dies in infancy he is sure of salvation; if he grows up to the years of accountability the chances are that he will be lost, as the vast majority of the race do not accept Christ. Does it not seem as though it would be a good thing if the whole race could die in infancy? and ought we not to be glad when our little ones die? for then we know they are safe, whereas if they grew up they might be lost; and, furthermore, does it not seem as though “God's ways were unequal" (Ezek. 18:25), thus to save one-half of the race unconditionally, and to expose the other half to a trial involving the awful risk of being lost eternally? and finally, is it not strange that God should reveal a way of salvation, and declare over and over again that this is the only way, and yet that he should save half of the race in some other way entirely unrevealed?

But let us continue to question our Christian friend and we shall see that the above are not by any means all of the absurdities involved in the orthodox view. We have found according to the above that God certainly has two ways of salvation; let us see if it does not appear, according to the same reasoning, that he has a third method. We ask our Christian friend then, “Do you think that all the heathen who have never heard of Christ will be lost?” he replies, “0 no; I think that those who live up to the light they have will be saved.” Ah, here is another method of salvation, a third way to be saved. There is no scripture for this view (see 1-4-75) it is only a makeshift to escape the awful conclusion that all the heathen are eternally lost; it is really a third unrevealed method whereby a portion of the race are to be brought to heaven. Hence, according to the “orthodox” view there are

THREE WAYS OF SALVATION.

One way, clearly revealed in the Bible and declared to be the only way, whereby man is to be saved through repentance and faith in the Saviour. By this method only a very small portion of the race have thus far been saved; for this way has never been made known to the vast majority of the race, and of the comparative few to whom it has been made known, only a very small minority, a very few of the few, accept it: Another way, whereby half of the human race, dying in infancy, are saved unconditionally. And still a third way where a portion (according to some, the majority) of the heathen are to be saved by living up to the light they have. Thus there are three distinct ways of salvation. One revealed, by which a very few comparatively will be saved. saved. Two unrevealed, by which the majority of the race will be saved. You cannot escape this conclusion if you reason from the “orthodox” standpoint. Is the conclusion true? Are God's ways thus unequal?

Nay, verily, but man's ways are unequal. God's word is made void by human tradition. Infants and heathen and "all men" are to be saved indeed, but not according to the above absurdities of human tradition, but according to the one only way of salvation "by grace through faith," to be made known to the great majority of the race “in the ages to come" (Eph. 2:7), for "God our Saviour will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth; for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified [to all] in due time" (1 Tim. 2:3-6)