SIR ROBERT ANDERSON
Secret Service
Theologian
MISUNDERSTOOD
TEXTS OF THE BIBLE
Chapter Eight
"It is impossible to renew them again unto
repentance" (Hebrews vi. 4 - 6).
Although we can all distinguish
between Christianity and the religion of Christendom, we are apt to miss the
still clearer distinction between Judaism regarded as the Divine religion and
as "the Jews religion." The Divine religion pointed to Christ, and was
fulfilled in him, hut the Jews religion crucified Christ. That in our day
Evangelical Christians should turn to altars and priests, is not only
anti-Christian, but in every respect contemptible.But we fail to realise what a
hold the outward symbols and ceremonies of their historic cult must have had
upon the hebrew Christians, and how natural it was that they should cling to
them. What need there must have been for warnings and appeals such as those of
Hebrews vi.
A chief function of the groomsman. or (to use the Oriental
phrase) "the friend of the bridegroom," was to present the bride to him. But if
the bride turned to follow the groomsman when, after fulfilling his duty, he
withdrew, she would be regarded as a wanton, and treated as an outcast. And
this may illustrate the apostasy of those who turn back to "religion" after
coming to Christ. "They crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh"(v. 6). It
is not that in fact they do this, any more than a man would really murder his
brother because of hating him. And the Apostle very definitely acknowledges
this in verse 9. But God judges a path by the goal to which it leads : and it
behoves his people to accept, and be guided by, the Divine estimate of their
thoughts and deeds.
And this is the purpose of the sixth chapter of
hebrews. It is a perversion of it to treat it as intended to limit or undermine
the heliever's confidence,or his sense of security in Christ. Indeed, no
passagein the Epistle is better fitted to confirm and establish faith than that
which immediately follows the warning words of these earlier verses of chapter
vi.
"For this He did once, when He offered up Himself" (Hebrews
vii. 27).
It is not "the poor of the flock" only who need to be told that
the word "once" here means "once for all," and not "once upon a time." For if
this had not been ignored by the wise and prudent, the Christendom ordinance of
the Mass would never have been instituted.
The word ephapax is
used but five times in the New Testament, and only by the Apostle Paul. In
Hebrews ix. 12 we read that Christ "entered intothe holy place once for all,
having obtained eternal redemption"; and in chapter x. 10, "we have been
sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all." And
Romans vi. 10 tells us that "He died unto sin once for all." Though not a few
Roman Catholics have a saving knowledge of Christ, they never enjoy settled
peace, because they know nothing of a "once-for-all" sacrifice, and an eternal
redemption. And the same is true of many a Protestant.
1 Corinthians xv.
6 is the only other passage where ephapax occurs. And the Apostles
use of the word generally may well support a doubt as to whetherwe read it
aright in taking it to mean merely that the "more than five hundred brethren"
who saw the Lord on the mountain in Galilee were all present at the same time.
For the Apostles purpose is to put on record the human evidence for the
Resurrection. And as a matter of evidence the proof would have been
immeasurably stronger if every one of the five hundred had received a separate
and independent vision of the Lord. May not the passage mean that this was a
"once-for-all" manifestation of Himself to His assembled disciples as
representatives of all who should afterwards believe in Him.
"Unto
them that look for Him shall He appear the second time, without sin, unto
salvation" (Hebrews ix. 28).
As these words are usually read on "the
text-card system," and without reference to the context, they are supposed to
refer to the so-called "Second Advent" - a phrase which, both in theological
literature and in popular use, points to the dread dies irae of a remote
future. When a phrase has thus acquired a definitely distinctive meaning, it
savours of pedantry to use it in any other sense.And as this particular phrase
embodies and perpetuates a gross error of Patristic teaching, which would rob
us of the Christian hope of the Lords Coming,we shall do well to discard
it. For if Christs "coming to judge the world" be His second coming, the
sceptic has good ground for asserting that the Coming revealed in the Epistles
- "that blessed hope" - is a superstitious belief based upon Apostolic
ignorance.
As noticed on a preceding page, the Second Advent of theology
will be the fourth or fifth Coming of Christ.But what specially concerns us
here is that there is no reference to it in Hebrews ix. 28, which speaks of His
appearing a second time for salvation. And it is noteworthy that this word
"appear" is the ordinary word for "being seen," and is so translated in 1
Corinthians xv. 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is wholly different from the word used
respecting the Lords Coming in1 Timothy vi. 14; 2 Timothy i. 10 and iv.
1, 8;and in Titus ii. 13. Our verse therefore might be rendered, "By them who
look for Him He will be seen a second time" ("the second time" is a
mistranslation, due no doubt to the influence of the "Second Advent"
doctrine).But the burden of this section of Hebrews is thedoctrine of the
sin-offering. And the closing wordsof chapter ix. would bring vividly to the
mind of a Hebrew Christian the ritual of the Day of Atonement.Upon that
red-letter day of Israels sacred calendar,the High Priest offered the
great yearly sin-offering, and when the prescribed ritual in all its parts was
fulfilled, he passed within the veil ; and the assembled Israelites watched and
waited until he reappeared to bless them. For his thus reappearing was a pledge
and proof that the sacrifice was accepted and expiation
accomplished.
The accuracy of the type is absolute. Why was Aaron
commanded to put off his high-priestly garments before offering the
sin-offering, and not to wear them again until after he had entered the Divine
presence with the blood? Why, but because it was not until after the Ascension,
when, having "put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself" (v. 26), and, having
passed into the heavens "by His own blood," that Christ was " called of God a
High Priest." And while Aarons appearing again in his garments of
gloryand beauty to bless the people will have, in the antitype, a literal
fulfilment for the earthly peopleof the Covenant, the heavenly election of this
dispensation have not to await that "second time appearing. For to them it is
given by faith to enter into the holiest "by that same blood by which He
entered there, and thus to behold Him apart from sin and
sin-offerings."
Dispensationally, this part of the type will be
fulfilled in a definite way to the elect remnant of Israel,who will be looking
for their Messiah; but in its spiritual teaching it is a truth for every
believer.For though the death of Christ, as the antitype ofthe sin-offering, is
in Gods sight the ground of our peace, our own appreciation of His
sacrifice, and our realisation of the peace it gives, depends upon our seeing
Him by faith apart from sin. It is the Hebrews aspect of the truth which Romans
connects with the resurrection of Christ. And it is truth which has no place in
the cult of the crucifix. Therefore is it that, although many Roman Catholics
may have a spiritual knowledge of Christ, they never seem to enjoy settled
peace.
A right understanding of this Hebrews passage will prevent its
being misused to support the figment that, at the Coming of the Lord, none will
be "caught up" save those who will be "looking for Him." If this were true,
multitudes of spiritual Christians would be left behind. For are they not
earnestly warned by their spiritual teachers that they ought to live looking,
not for Christ, but for Antichrist and all the horrors and terrors which, as
the Lord declared in Matthew xxiv., must precede His Coming as Son of Man, for
the deliverance of His earthly people in a.future age.
"If we sin
wilfully . . . there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Hebrews x. 26
ff).
The preceding note upon Hebrews vi. 4 - 6 leaves but little to be said
upon this kindred passage. And that little cannot be better expressed than in
the words of Dean Alfords Commentary. The sin here meant, he says, is
"the sin of apostasy from Christ back to the state which preceded the reception
of Christ, namely, Judaism. This is the ground-sin of all other sins. The verb
is in the present, not the past.If we be found wilfully sinning,
not if we have wilfully sinned, at that day. It is not of an act,or
of any number of acts of sin, that the writer is speaking, which might be
repented of and blotted out; but of a state of sin in which a man is found when
that day shall come."
Here, moreover, as in chapter vi., the immediate
sequel plainly indicates that nothing was further from the Apostles
purpose than to limit or weaken the faith of the Hebrew Christians. And it
further confirms the view that the warning had reference, not to lapses in the
sphere of morals, but to "drawing back" to the religion that was fulfilled in
Christ. And if such words were needed in the case of those who were turning
back to the Divine religion of Judaism, what a voice they should have for those
who turn to the sham altars of Christianised paganism!
The prevalence of
altars in our churches to-day is a sad and signal proof that there has been a
grievous lapse from the faith of Christ during the last half-century. And it is
all the more strange, because to recognise an altar in a Christian place of
worship is to run counter to the doctrines of the Church of England. . . . That
the Reformers wished to discountenance the notion of altars appears from the
fact that, at the Reformation, altars were ordered to be called tables;
because, as Bishop Hooper said, as long as altars remain, both the ignorant
people and the ignorant and evil-minded priest will always dream of sacrifice.
What concerns us more closely here, however, is that Christianity knows nothing
of altars. Moreover, "the only priests under the gospel, designated as such in
the New Testament, are the saints, themembers of the Christian brotherhood. As
individuals, all Christians are priests alike."
"We have an altar
whereof they have no right to eat which serve the Tabernacle " (Hebrews
xiii. io).
The popular exposition of this verse depends on emphasising the
pronouns in order to make it indicate a contrast between Christianity and
Judaism. But in the original Greek the pronouns are not expressed.If they were,
we might convey their force in an English translation by printing them in
italics.For example, a Roman Catholic might say, "We have an altar," thus
implying a contrast with Protestants who have none. But without the emphasis,
the phrase thus addressed to Hebrew Christians is equivalent to "There is an
altar." And this is here the force of the Apostles words. For he is not
propounding a new Christian doctrine, but illustrating and enforcing the
practical truth which finds definite expression in the thirteenth verse. And
with this end in view, he refers to ordinances of the Divine religion of
Judaism, with which every Hebrew Christian was familiar.
As a general
rule the altar contributed to the dietary of the priests. But in verses 10 and
11 he reminds them of the notable exception to that rule.The great annual
sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement, of which the blood was brought into the
sanctuary, were "burned without the camp," and the priests had no right to eat
thereof. Regarded in its highest aspect, we can have no part in the sacrifice
of Calvary, albeit, we receive to the full the benefits and blessings accruing
from it: "Alone He bore the Cross" But the Cross testified, not only to
Gods judgment upon sin, but to mans estimate of the Sin-bearer. It
told not only of the wrath of God, but of the reproach which men heaped upon
Christ. Is the Christian, then, to share the blessings, and yet refuse to share
the reproach? Surely not : "Therefore (emphatic) let us go forth unto Him
without the camp, bearing His reproach." This is the teaching of the
passage.
Though expositors are generally agreed that it refers to the
Day of Atonement. they differ as to whether the altar of sin-offering has its
antitype inthe Cross or in Christ Himself. This betrays strange ignorance of
the language in which Christian truth is revealed in the New Testament, namely,
thetypology of the Pentateuch. For there was no altar of sin-offering. And upon
the Day of Atonement the sin-offering victim was not killed upon an altar at
all. The law is explicit; it was killed "beside the altar." And neither altar
nor priest is necessary to a sacrifice. For there was neither altar nor priest
in Egypt when the great Paschal sacrifice of Israels redemption was
offered. And, moreover, the institution of sacrifice is as old as the Eden
Fall.
Until we come to the heavenly visions of the Book of Revelation,
the New Testament knows nothing of an altar. The word is used eight times in
the Gospels and six times in the Epistles ; but only by way of narratival
mention. Has the Christian then no altar? Assuredly he has; but its place is in
the heavenly shrine of the Great High Priest. Altars and priests upon earth
bear testimony, not to the Divine Presence, but to the apostasy of the
professing Church.
Chapter Nine
Literature | Photos | Links | Home