Post by Admin on Oct 17, 2024 15:51:05 GMT -5
7. THE WORK OF CHRIST
“The church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood”
(Acts 20:28).
I do not intend to enter fully upon the subject of Christ’s work. This
would require a much fuller discussion than I am able at present to
bestow upon it. It would in fact require a volume of itself.
Christ is said in Scripture to have given Himself as a ransom and
substitute for His church, and to have done so in a way such as He
has not done for any other beings. This seems implied in the very
first promise — the promise regarding the woman’s seed. Here we
have at the very outset the identifying work of Christ and His people
— the setting them before us as entirely one with Him. His destiny
and theirs are thus one from the beginning. We recognize here not
only the Redeemer, but the chosen people, the people given Him of
the Father, with whom He identifies Himself, and in whose behalf He
is to die and to suffer — to bruise the serpent’s head and to submit to
the bruising of His own heel.
It is not merely Christ who is said to have died. His people are said to
die with Him. The Apostle Paul very frequently dwells on this idea,
representing the church as crucified with Christ, dying with Him,
rising with Him, ascending up with Him and sitting with Him in
heavenly places. In Jehovah’s eye His people were with Him all the
time, from His coming into the world. He stood in their stead, and
they were viewed as one with Him from His cradle to His cross, and
from His cross to His throne. They were taken up to the cross with
Him. They died there with Him. They went down to the grave with
Him. They came again along with Him. They ascended with Him.
Now, I confess I cannot understand these expressions unless I
believe in a definite number for whom all this was especially done. I
cannot see how it is possible for the atonement to be indefinite, so
long as I read that in all its parts the church was associated with
Christ. This renders definiteness an essential element in the idea of
redemption.
But how can there be any truth in all this if Christ has no special
object in view in dying, except merely to render salvation possible to
all, but certain to none? In that case He could only die as a man for
His fellowmen — not as a substitute, not as a representative, not as a
surety, not as a shepherd at all. I put it to you, which of these is most
in accordance with the Word of God?
It is the view which would present itself to the eye looking from the
past eternity into the future, contemplating the glorious issue. And it
is the view which we hereafter shall more fully realize when we get
into that eternity and begin to look back upon the whole finished
scheme. Viewed from either of these points, the far past or the far
future, the thing seems striking and vivid. Standing as we do in the
present in the very midst of the scenes, with the smoke of the world
all around us, seeing but darkly through the glass, we may find it
more difficult to realize this. But faith can rise out of these dark
elements below. It can transport itself to either of these eternal
eminences. And, looking at things as God looks on them,
contemplating results as He does, faith will be able to realize God’s
purpose regarding the church in all the different stages of its
progress now, as if it had actually been represented in visible
brightness, and the other parts which confuse us hidden from view.
The moment the sculptor is hewing out his statue is not the best time
to ascertain what he means. You must look at his designs, or you
must wait until he has finished his work.
Here are some of the passages which represent Christ as doing a
peculiar work on behalf of His church: “I am the good Shepherd, the
good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). “I am the
good Shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” (v. 14).
“I lay down My life for the sheep” (v. 15). “Ye believe not, because ye
are not of My sheep (v. 26). “Thou hast given Him power over all
flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given
Him” (John 17:2). “I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for
them which Thou hast given Me” (v. 9). “Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph.
5:25).
In these passages we hear Christ repeatedly speaking of those whom
He calls sheep, and telling us He gave His life for them — for them in
a peculiar sense, as He did for no other. It is as a shepherd that He
died with a shepherd’s love and a shepherd’s care — for His sheep as
such. Again, He prays for His own, for those whom the Father has
given Him, not for the world. Can words be plainer? Here is certainly
a distinction made, “I pray not for the world.” Here at least is
something peculiar to His church alone. And one such peculiarity is
enough to answer the objections of adversaries. Is not the way in
which He prayed an illustration of the way in which He died? Are not
those for whom He prayed the same as those for whom He died?
But over against all this are set those many passages in which the
word “all” occurs, as in “Christ died for all.” Now the passages
already quoted are more explicit and cannot be overthrown. They are
too plain to be mistaken. Yet there are admittedly some difficulties
with regard to some of the passages in which the word “all” occurs.
But it is better to confess the difficulty and wait for further light than
at once to proceed to do violence to the passage itself, or to make its
difficulty a reason for doing violence to others.
With regard to the meaning of the word “all” in the Bible, especially
in the New Testament, a few remarks will be necessary. It occurs
there more than twelve hundred times. These twelve hundred texts
may be subdivided:
Class One consists of a very large number of passages, several
hundreds in which it is undeniable that the word cannot mean “all”
literally. To give one or two specimens, we are told that “all the land
of Judea... went out to him and were all baptized.” This was certainly
not literally the case, for every individual in the whole land did not
come, for we are expressly told that “the Pharisees and lawyers were
not baptized of him” (Luke 7:30). Again we read, “All men seek for
Thee” (Mark 1:37). This was not literally so. Every individual in the
human race, or even every individual in Judea, did not seek Him.
Again, we have such passages as these, “He told me all things that
ever I did” (John 4:29); “All things are lawful unto me”; “All our
fathers were under the cloud”; “All they which were in Asia be turned
away from me”; and, “Ye know all things.”
Class Two consists of passages in which it is very doubtful whether
all is literally universal. It may, or it may not be. There is nothing
positively to determine it. “Every nation under heaven”; “All they
which dwelt in Asia”; “The care of all the churches”; “All that dwell
upon the earth shall worship him” (Acts 2:5; 19:10; 2 Cor. 11:28; Rev.
13:8), etc. These are specimens of a large class of doubtful passages,
which, of course, can prove nothing as to the literal meaning of “all.”
Class Three consists of passages which are only determined by the
context, not by the expressions themselves. The whole passage taken
together fixes the meaning. But were it not for that, the literal
meaning would have been doubtful. “All ye are brethren”; “All these
things must come to pass”; “They all slumbered”; “When Jesus had
finished all these sayings,” etc. In all these passages and in many
similar ones, it is not the word “all” itself that points out the strict
universality, but it is some other word that occurs along with it, such
as “all these things.” In these cases, while in one sense the word has a
universal sense, in another it has a limited one — limited by the
words with which it is connected. It means all of a certain class, all of
a certain number. So that we gather from these that when “all” is to
be understood literally, we must learn from the context what the
word means — whether it is all of one nation or all of another,
whether it is all of one class or all of another. This answers at once
the oft-repeated argument which consists merely in vociferating the
word “all” as if the loudness or the frequency of the outcry were
enough to demonstrate the meaning of the word. That meaning must
be determined in each separate case by the other words, or parts of
the passage.
Class Four consists of the passages in question, those supposed to
imply a universal atonement. On these I cannot enter here. They are
the fewest of all the four classes. Our opponents say they must be
interpreted literally. Let us see how the proof stands.
Of the Scriptures in which the word “all” occurs, a large number are
exceedingly doubtful. Another large number are only proved to mean
literally “all” by the context. The fewest in number of these four
classes are those which are claimed by our opponents.
The result of this statement is simply this, that the mere occurrence
of the word “all” does not determine the question at all. Nothing but
a careful examination of the whole passage can settle it. Do not then
be deceived by the loud repetitions of the words — all and every —
when intended to take the place of more solid proof.
It is impossible to do more here than to notice one passage, being
one of the strongest and one that affords an admirable illustration of
the need for looking at the context to determine the meaning of the
word. It is, “He tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). It is literally
“for each,” since there is nothing about men in the original Greek.
The question then arises, what does the apostle mean by “each”? The
context must settle it. It either carries us back to the “heirs of
salvation,” or forward to the “many sons.” For obviously it must refer
to some of whom the apostle was speaking. Now, he was only
speaking of the angels, and of the many sons, the heirs of salvation,
and of no other. It cannot be the angels, therefore it must be the
many sons, the heirs of salvation. They are the peculiar theme of the
whole chapter, anyone following the apostle’s reasoning would
naturally understand this expression to refer to them. It is straining
it to refer it to any others. If it does refer to others, it might as well
refer to angels (much more naturally so than of the world); for he is
speaking of them, not of the world at all. The fifteenth chapter of
First Corinthians is an illustration of this. The apostle is treating of
the resurrection of the saints, not of the wicked. It is only by keeping
this in view that his statements there regarding the “all” can be fully
understood. So the “each” here referred to must be the “each” of
those he was speaking of. And the singular used here is very striking,
not simply the individualizing the saints, but as doing so in
connection with the whole work of Christ. All that Christ did, He did
for each! — His whole work, His whole propitiation, His whole
tasting of death belongs to each, just as much as if only one had been
saved. The whole of what Christ did is the property of each saint. His
work is not made up of so many parts, or extending to certain
dimensions (greater or smaller according to the number of the saved)
so that each of them gets a part of Himself and a part of His work.
No, His work is such that each gets the whole of it — the whole of His
glorious self, the whole of His glorious work. Each gets the benefit of
His tasting death, as if endured for himself singly, alone.
Only a few hints have been thrown out to lead you, to establish you in
the faith, to repel the objections of opponents. The real question
before us is this, Was the atonement of Christ a definite or an
indefinite thing? That is the essence and marrow of the controversy.
It is upon this that the case of things hinges. There is a mighty
difference between a definite and an indefinite work. Search the
Scriptures and see if the language in which they speak does not
necessarily imply something definite and certain — something which
infallibly secured the object for which the Son of God took flesh and
died, (which was, as you know, “to bring many sons to glory”).
“For the transgression of My people was He stricken” (Isa. 53:8).
“The church ...which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts
20:28).
“The church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood”
(Acts 20:28).
I do not intend to enter fully upon the subject of Christ’s work. This
would require a much fuller discussion than I am able at present to
bestow upon it. It would in fact require a volume of itself.
Christ is said in Scripture to have given Himself as a ransom and
substitute for His church, and to have done so in a way such as He
has not done for any other beings. This seems implied in the very
first promise — the promise regarding the woman’s seed. Here we
have at the very outset the identifying work of Christ and His people
— the setting them before us as entirely one with Him. His destiny
and theirs are thus one from the beginning. We recognize here not
only the Redeemer, but the chosen people, the people given Him of
the Father, with whom He identifies Himself, and in whose behalf He
is to die and to suffer — to bruise the serpent’s head and to submit to
the bruising of His own heel.
It is not merely Christ who is said to have died. His people are said to
die with Him. The Apostle Paul very frequently dwells on this idea,
representing the church as crucified with Christ, dying with Him,
rising with Him, ascending up with Him and sitting with Him in
heavenly places. In Jehovah’s eye His people were with Him all the
time, from His coming into the world. He stood in their stead, and
they were viewed as one with Him from His cradle to His cross, and
from His cross to His throne. They were taken up to the cross with
Him. They died there with Him. They went down to the grave with
Him. They came again along with Him. They ascended with Him.
Now, I confess I cannot understand these expressions unless I
believe in a definite number for whom all this was especially done. I
cannot see how it is possible for the atonement to be indefinite, so
long as I read that in all its parts the church was associated with
Christ. This renders definiteness an essential element in the idea of
redemption.
But how can there be any truth in all this if Christ has no special
object in view in dying, except merely to render salvation possible to
all, but certain to none? In that case He could only die as a man for
His fellowmen — not as a substitute, not as a representative, not as a
surety, not as a shepherd at all. I put it to you, which of these is most
in accordance with the Word of God?
It is the view which would present itself to the eye looking from the
past eternity into the future, contemplating the glorious issue. And it
is the view which we hereafter shall more fully realize when we get
into that eternity and begin to look back upon the whole finished
scheme. Viewed from either of these points, the far past or the far
future, the thing seems striking and vivid. Standing as we do in the
present in the very midst of the scenes, with the smoke of the world
all around us, seeing but darkly through the glass, we may find it
more difficult to realize this. But faith can rise out of these dark
elements below. It can transport itself to either of these eternal
eminences. And, looking at things as God looks on them,
contemplating results as He does, faith will be able to realize God’s
purpose regarding the church in all the different stages of its
progress now, as if it had actually been represented in visible
brightness, and the other parts which confuse us hidden from view.
The moment the sculptor is hewing out his statue is not the best time
to ascertain what he means. You must look at his designs, or you
must wait until he has finished his work.
Here are some of the passages which represent Christ as doing a
peculiar work on behalf of His church: “I am the good Shepherd, the
good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep” (John 10:11). “I am the
good Shepherd and know My sheep and am known of Mine” (v. 14).
“I lay down My life for the sheep” (v. 15). “Ye believe not, because ye
are not of My sheep (v. 26). “Thou hast given Him power over all
flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as Thou hast given
Him” (John 17:2). “I pray for them. I pray not for the world, but for
them which Thou hast given Me” (v. 9). “Husbands, love your wives,
even as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for it” (Eph.
5:25).
In these passages we hear Christ repeatedly speaking of those whom
He calls sheep, and telling us He gave His life for them — for them in
a peculiar sense, as He did for no other. It is as a shepherd that He
died with a shepherd’s love and a shepherd’s care — for His sheep as
such. Again, He prays for His own, for those whom the Father has
given Him, not for the world. Can words be plainer? Here is certainly
a distinction made, “I pray not for the world.” Here at least is
something peculiar to His church alone. And one such peculiarity is
enough to answer the objections of adversaries. Is not the way in
which He prayed an illustration of the way in which He died? Are not
those for whom He prayed the same as those for whom He died?
But over against all this are set those many passages in which the
word “all” occurs, as in “Christ died for all.” Now the passages
already quoted are more explicit and cannot be overthrown. They are
too plain to be mistaken. Yet there are admittedly some difficulties
with regard to some of the passages in which the word “all” occurs.
But it is better to confess the difficulty and wait for further light than
at once to proceed to do violence to the passage itself, or to make its
difficulty a reason for doing violence to others.
With regard to the meaning of the word “all” in the Bible, especially
in the New Testament, a few remarks will be necessary. It occurs
there more than twelve hundred times. These twelve hundred texts
may be subdivided:
Class One consists of a very large number of passages, several
hundreds in which it is undeniable that the word cannot mean “all”
literally. To give one or two specimens, we are told that “all the land
of Judea... went out to him and were all baptized.” This was certainly
not literally the case, for every individual in the whole land did not
come, for we are expressly told that “the Pharisees and lawyers were
not baptized of him” (Luke 7:30). Again we read, “All men seek for
Thee” (Mark 1:37). This was not literally so. Every individual in the
human race, or even every individual in Judea, did not seek Him.
Again, we have such passages as these, “He told me all things that
ever I did” (John 4:29); “All things are lawful unto me”; “All our
fathers were under the cloud”; “All they which were in Asia be turned
away from me”; and, “Ye know all things.”
Class Two consists of passages in which it is very doubtful whether
all is literally universal. It may, or it may not be. There is nothing
positively to determine it. “Every nation under heaven”; “All they
which dwelt in Asia”; “The care of all the churches”; “All that dwell
upon the earth shall worship him” (Acts 2:5; 19:10; 2 Cor. 11:28; Rev.
13:8), etc. These are specimens of a large class of doubtful passages,
which, of course, can prove nothing as to the literal meaning of “all.”
Class Three consists of passages which are only determined by the
context, not by the expressions themselves. The whole passage taken
together fixes the meaning. But were it not for that, the literal
meaning would have been doubtful. “All ye are brethren”; “All these
things must come to pass”; “They all slumbered”; “When Jesus had
finished all these sayings,” etc. In all these passages and in many
similar ones, it is not the word “all” itself that points out the strict
universality, but it is some other word that occurs along with it, such
as “all these things.” In these cases, while in one sense the word has a
universal sense, in another it has a limited one — limited by the
words with which it is connected. It means all of a certain class, all of
a certain number. So that we gather from these that when “all” is to
be understood literally, we must learn from the context what the
word means — whether it is all of one nation or all of another,
whether it is all of one class or all of another. This answers at once
the oft-repeated argument which consists merely in vociferating the
word “all” as if the loudness or the frequency of the outcry were
enough to demonstrate the meaning of the word. That meaning must
be determined in each separate case by the other words, or parts of
the passage.
Class Four consists of the passages in question, those supposed to
imply a universal atonement. On these I cannot enter here. They are
the fewest of all the four classes. Our opponents say they must be
interpreted literally. Let us see how the proof stands.
Of the Scriptures in which the word “all” occurs, a large number are
exceedingly doubtful. Another large number are only proved to mean
literally “all” by the context. The fewest in number of these four
classes are those which are claimed by our opponents.
The result of this statement is simply this, that the mere occurrence
of the word “all” does not determine the question at all. Nothing but
a careful examination of the whole passage can settle it. Do not then
be deceived by the loud repetitions of the words — all and every —
when intended to take the place of more solid proof.
It is impossible to do more here than to notice one passage, being
one of the strongest and one that affords an admirable illustration of
the need for looking at the context to determine the meaning of the
word. It is, “He tasted death for every man” (Heb. 2:9). It is literally
“for each,” since there is nothing about men in the original Greek.
The question then arises, what does the apostle mean by “each”? The
context must settle it. It either carries us back to the “heirs of
salvation,” or forward to the “many sons.” For obviously it must refer
to some of whom the apostle was speaking. Now, he was only
speaking of the angels, and of the many sons, the heirs of salvation,
and of no other. It cannot be the angels, therefore it must be the
many sons, the heirs of salvation. They are the peculiar theme of the
whole chapter, anyone following the apostle’s reasoning would
naturally understand this expression to refer to them. It is straining
it to refer it to any others. If it does refer to others, it might as well
refer to angels (much more naturally so than of the world); for he is
speaking of them, not of the world at all. The fifteenth chapter of
First Corinthians is an illustration of this. The apostle is treating of
the resurrection of the saints, not of the wicked. It is only by keeping
this in view that his statements there regarding the “all” can be fully
understood. So the “each” here referred to must be the “each” of
those he was speaking of. And the singular used here is very striking,
not simply the individualizing the saints, but as doing so in
connection with the whole work of Christ. All that Christ did, He did
for each! — His whole work, His whole propitiation, His whole
tasting of death belongs to each, just as much as if only one had been
saved. The whole of what Christ did is the property of each saint. His
work is not made up of so many parts, or extending to certain
dimensions (greater or smaller according to the number of the saved)
so that each of them gets a part of Himself and a part of His work.
No, His work is such that each gets the whole of it — the whole of His
glorious self, the whole of His glorious work. Each gets the benefit of
His tasting death, as if endured for himself singly, alone.
Only a few hints have been thrown out to lead you, to establish you in
the faith, to repel the objections of opponents. The real question
before us is this, Was the atonement of Christ a definite or an
indefinite thing? That is the essence and marrow of the controversy.
It is upon this that the case of things hinges. There is a mighty
difference between a definite and an indefinite work. Search the
Scriptures and see if the language in which they speak does not
necessarily imply something definite and certain — something which
infallibly secured the object for which the Son of God took flesh and
died, (which was, as you know, “to bring many sons to glory”).
“For the transgression of My people was He stricken” (Isa. 53:8).
“The church ...which He hath purchased with His own blood” (Acts
20:28).