Sunday Morning at the Birmingham Christadelphian Ecclesia, No. 128
“Exhort one another daily.”—Paul.
p. 70WHEN Jesus instituted the memorial supper which we have met this morning to observe, he was surrounded by his disciples in an upper room in Jerusalem, where he had met them by appointment to keep the feast of the passover. That feast was part of the Mosaic appointments. The meeting was on the basis of the law of Moses ; for Jesus and the disciples were all Jews, born and bred under that law, which had been in force for 1,400 years. It was the last time they met together on that foundation, but not the last time they will eat the passover together, for he said: “With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer ; for I say unto you, I will not any more eat thereof until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.”
The feast had been observed on countless previous occasions, and with an ostentation not to be found in that upper room among those quiet thirteen men; but never had there been such a momentous celebration of it. The whole law, of which the passover was a part, was converging for its finish in the one sorrowful man who was the centre of that group, “Christ our passover, sacrificed for us” was about to absorb in himself the significance of all that Israel had observed for ages in obedience to the law of Moses, and therefore of the passover which he was now about to eat for the last time as a mortal son of Abraham.
The passover was instituted on the eve of Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. It was not merely a celebration of deliverance, but a means of it, which it is well to bear in mind in judging of its fulfilment in Christ. The angel of Jehovah was about to pass through the land for the purpose of destroying the first born in every Egyptian house, that the Egyptians might be made to consent to Israel’s departure. But there was a possibility that this destroying visitation might extend to the houses of the Hebrews as well. To avert this possibility (we need not stay to inquire in what way), every family in Israel were required to slay a lamb, sprinkle its blood on the door post, and eat its flesh before the morning. The destroying angel seeing the sprinkled blood would pass over the household so protected, for which reason it was called passover, as we know. Afterwards Israel were to keep the same passover in their generations, in celebration of their deliverance, first from the destroying angel and next from the Egyptians.
Before the sacrifice of “Christ, our passover,” we have here himself eating the p. 71passover with his disciples, in token of the fact that he was involved with them in all their woes, from which his own blood, the blood of the anti-typical passover would deliver them all, for though it harmonises not with orthodox conceptions of the sacrifice of Christ, it is the truth that the “God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” (Heb. xiii., 20.) The passover was a memorial of the deliverance effected in Egypt, and a typical foreshadowing of the deliverance to be effected in Christ. It looked back and it looked forward. In both, Jesus was concerned. As the “son of David, the son of Abraham” (Matt. i., 1), he was as much interested retrospectively in the Egyptian deliverance as his disciples, who were to be considered as having come out of Egypt in their fathers ; as the son of Mary, partaking of their common sin-caused mortality (for death entered into the world by sin—(Rom. v., 12), he stood in as much need as they of that redemption from death, which he finally attained through the shedding of his own blood, as the anti-typical lamb of Jehovah’s passover. (Heb. ix., 12—omit ital. “for us,” also chap., v. 7.) Where he differed was in the mental state resulting from the fact that God was his father in the generative sense. He was God’s well-beloved son, in whom God was well pleased, because he abode in his commandments, and did always those things that were pleasing unto him. (Jno. xv. 10 ; viii. 29.) He also differed in the Father’s abiding presence, in the fulness of the spirit in the vessel so prepared. He was the Father’s human manifestation in the midst of Israel for the purpose of laying the foundation of human salvation in harmony with the principle of the Father’s supremacy which required in the blood-shedding of such as partake of human mortality, the declaration of the Father’s righteousness as the basis of the remission of sin unto life eternal to those recognising and submitting to it. The work was accomplished in his death and resurrection, by which he became “the first begotten of the dead,” (Rev. i., 5) and a name by investiture with which men may be saved— the only name given under heaven for this purpose (Acts iv. 12.)
When Jesus observed the passover, the time was at hand for his own offering up by which the significance of the typical feast would be superseded. He, therefore, takes occasion to appoint another institution by which the anti-typical accomplishment itself would be kept before the minds of believers “until he come.” Beautifully enough, he finds the elements of the new type in those of the old, for both had their ultimate significance in the same thing. He took bread from the remains of the passover feast and broke it and said, “This is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me.” This saying which must have been enigmatical to the disciples at the time of its utterance, was illustrated on the following day, when Jesus surrendered himself to the cross on which his body was cruelly and publicly impaled, underneath an accusation which was no disgrace, but the utterance of the simple truth; “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.” This agonising Tragedy, so far as the human aspect of it was concerned, was the divinely arranged public condemnation of sin in the flesh—the declaration of the righteousness of God in the offering of the body of Jesus once for all—a body which was at once the condemned nature of Adam and the sinless Son of God, in whose death, the righteous law of God had its execution, and in whose resurrection, the perfect righteousness of Jesus had its vindication, and by which double event, a man was provided through whom came the resurrection of the dead without any nullification of any of the ways of God. All this was involved in the words of Jesus, “this is my body given for you.” The whole arrangement was “for (or on account of) those who shall be saved,” but of course included in its operation Jesus himself, who is the “first-born p. 72among many brethren.” (Rom. viii. 29.) By His accepted offering, all are sanctified who come unto God through him, confessing their sins, humbling themselves in the obedience of baptism which ceremonially introduces them to the death of Christ.
The same glorious lesson comes out with equal clearness in connection with the cup, which he took after the bread, saying, “take this cup and divide it among yourselves . . . this cup is new Testament in my blood shed for the remission of the sins of many.” If this must have been a strange saying to the disciples at the time of its utterance, it did not remain so, for it was the topic of conversation after his resurrection. And it is not strange to those in our day who scripturally understand the truth, for it has been the subject of exposition in the apostolic writings. But put it to the common run of Christians: “the new testament (or covenant) in my blood.” What understanding have they of its meaning? Ask them a plainer question: What is the new covenant? What are the covenants of promise to which believers are no longer strangers? (Eph. ii. 12.) What are the promises made unto the fathers which Christ came to confirm? (Rom. xv. 8.) To these questions there is no response on the part of the common run of Christians, or on the part of their teachers, the so-colled “Rev.” gentlemen of all denominations. If the new covenant itself is not known, how can its relations in the blood of Christ be discerned ?
We have learnt from the Scriptures what the new covenant is. Its name, as the new covenant, involves an allusion to the old one that was established at Sinai when God, by the hands of Moses, promised to bless Israel in the land to which they were going, on condition of obedience: and Israel, on their part, undertook to submit to whatever was required of them. This old contract or agreement or covenant, (ratified by the sprinkling of the blood of sacrificial animals) pronounced a curse on every one who should not observe its obligations in every particular : and these were very numerous and entered into every relation of life. Such a rigid and absolute observance being impossible in the infirmity of human nature, Peter styles it “a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear.” (Acts xv. 10.) No one rendered the exact obedience it required but Christ. It served its purpose, however. God did not make a mistake in appointing it. It was “a schoolmaster :” it established the first principles of Godliness in the midst of Israel, viz., that obedience to God was the first law of human well-being, and that man was unable to bless himself. Still, so far as practical results were concerned, it cursed all who had to with it, since none but Christ was able to comply with its requirements in the perfect manner required. This old curse-bringing covenant was about to be done away when Christ ate the passover for the last time with his disciples. It was about to be done away in him by his dying under it after having perfectly obeyed it, and rising again from the dead because of his righteousness under it; and in him, thus triumphant over the old covenant, the new covenant was to be established and offered—a covenant, says Paul “established upon better promises,” (Heb. viii. 6.) These promises, he styles, “promises made to the fathers.” (Rom. xv. 8.) What these are we have learnt: They are contained in the writings of Moses and the Prophets. They are promises of future blessedness on earth to Abraham and his seed (Gal. iii. 16)—a blessedness connected with the inheritance of the land of promise and involving the bestowal of everlasting life. The new covenant is based upon these. It is a more beneficial covenant than the old. It is an agreement that if we have faith in what God has accomplished in Christ, and bring ourselves into connection with it in a humble, loving, obedient disposition, our sins will be forgiven, and we ourselves made heirs of the blessedness promised to Abraham and his seed.
But why should this covenant be offered p. 73in blood ? Why should Jesus, taking the symbolic cup of wine, say, “This is the new covenant in my blood ?” There is a simple meaning to this, which we shall get at by a few questions. In what character is blood brought forward in the Mosaic shadow from which much of the phraseology of the new covenant is derived ? Lev. xvii, 12-14, answers this question : “The life of the flesh is in the blood thereof: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.” Blood then, is sacrificially employed to represent life, which it is: for withdraw the blood and you withdraw the life of any creature. If blood represents life, then the shedding of it represents death. To pour out the blood of any thing sacrificed, was to cause its death: when a worshipper approached God with the blood of a slain animal, (having placed his hand on the head of the animal before it was slain), it was a confession that before God, as a sinner, he had no right to live, seeing that “Death is the wages of sin,” and that death hath passed upon all men through Adam. It was in fact a typical declaration of the righteousness of God, with which God was pleased to be approached; but only typical because there was no natural connection between the slain animal and the consequences of sin ; consequently, “the blood of bulls and of goats could not take away sin.” (Heb. x. 4.) The type pointed to the purpose of Jehovah to provide a perfect declaration of His righteousness in the shed blood of an actual wearer of the nature condemned in Adam, who should be acceptable to Him in all things, and whose resurrection could therefore follow His blood shedding. This anti-typical lamb, as we know, was the Lord Jesus, who though made in all things like unto his brethren as regards mortality of nature on account of sin, was himself absolutely free from sin in his own character. Here was the lamb of God without spot or blemish, and yet a suitable sacrifice in the possession of the very nature which had come under condemnation, because of sin in the beginning. In the shedding of his blood, there was a “declaration of the righteousness of God.” (Rom. iii, 25-26.) He was not destined to return to dust: it was therefore necessary that his blood should be spilt and that death should follow, as the ceremonial declaration of Jehovah’s righteousness in the public condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. viii, 3) as a basis for the offer of free pardon to all who should recognise the declaration and identify themselves with it and come unto God with confession and faith in the name of the crucified Jesus, as the one great sacrifice through which alone man can acceptably approach God.
In view of all these things, it is evident what force there is in the words with which Jesus introduced the memorial cup to the notice of his disciples: “This is the new covenant in my blood shed for the remission of the sins of many.” The new covenant or agreement, which ensures coming blessedness to the fallen sons of Adam, is in the blood of Christ and nowhere else. There can be no blessedness without covenant, because, apart from the addition of special covenant on the part of God, who only has the power to bestow blessedness, we are shut up to what we have by nature, and that is, a poor mortal body that will wear out in due course and disappear in death. And there can be no covenant without sacrifice, for so has God willed, and we can no more get past his will in this matter than we can in the constitution of heaven and earth. And there is no sacrifice but one with which we can approach God for covenant, and that is the one great sacrifice accomplished in Christ. And there is no way of becoming associated with that sacrifice but by enlightenment in the promises on which the covenant is established, and faith in the blood in which it is offered, and legal contact with that blood in baptism, which is the divinely-appointed mode of association with the death of p. 74Christ. The root of the whole matter lies first, in the greatness, and then in the goodness of God. God is a great and dreadful Majesty, to whom the earth and all flesh belong, for He has made them out of his own energy. He is not only great, but He is holy, and jealous of His supremacy. He has been disobeyed on earth, and has in consequence given us over to death ; and will not be approached by us except in the manner he has appointed. But He is good, and He will forgive and bestow everlasting life if we humble ourselves and come to him in the way appointed. The way appointed is through the shed-blood of a perfectly righteous wearer of our nature, in whom sin was condemned on our account. He will forgive us if we come in this way: not because that bloodshedding pacifies him or gives him any thing or pays any debt : for then it would be no forgiveness.—But because His righteousness is declared, and His prerogative recognised, and our position acknowledged in the acceptance of the slain lamb of His appointing.
We endorse and proclaim all these glorious things every time we take this cup into our hand and drink it, and say “Amen !” at the giving of thanks for “the new covenant in the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins.” This breaking of bread signifies our acceptance of God’s way, and is a testimony to the world that they have no hope outside of this way. We find great comfort in that way ourselves, and we would extend that comfort on the right hand and on the left. But we find many obstacles in the imaginations and high thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. (2 Cor. x, 5.) We have even earned the bitterest odium it is possible for men to bear—the reputation of being illiberal and uncharitable and narrow minded and bigoted—because we maintain the teaching of Christ and his apostles on this most vital matter. What can we do but accept the result with resignation? It is a result that has always more or less attended the testimony of the truth. It is no new thing for “the preaching of the cross” to be productive of offence. Paul speaks of it in his letters. He says, the preaching of the cross was to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness. He accepted the reproach incident to such a situation ; he refused to glory in anything save the cross of our Lord Jesus. We are in the best of company when we are in the company of Paul, and we are undoubtedly in his company when we are accused by the modern Greeks (the scientists of every grade) of being behind the age and badly informed, and old fogey and sectarian ; and by the Jews, of being worse than the Christians in the rigidness of our insistance on the original teachings of Christ, and by Christians, of being gloomy retrogessionists, the slaves of a dead letter, and strangers to the broad life and charity and the true spirit of the gospel. To each and all, we can but say, “We accept Christ because he rose from the dead: and we accept the apostles, because we accept Christ ; and we accept the New Testament writings as the standard of truth because we accept the apostles ; and we challenge you all to deny that the conclusions which we maintain are the teachings of these writings. It would be pleasant to come on to your broad platform and to join in your charitable spirit and to share your freedom from the narrownesses and restraints that undoubtedly hamper the profession of the gospel, as originally delivered, as regards the present evil world. We should have your pleasant society, and your encouraging recognition, and your advantageous patronage, and your general enjoyment of the broad fields of human culture, and pleasure, and good fellowship. But wherein should we be the gainers in the day when Christ arrives to sweep away the present order of things, and to re-organise affairs in harmony with divine principles only, and to give glorious place in his house to those only who do the will of his Father, as written in his revealed word of truth? We should p. 75have a poor staff to lean on, in a respectable world which will then dissolve in terror before his face. No: we have made Christ our portion, and for better or worse, we will accept the isolation and the odium that result from the consequential exclusivness, confident that experience, shortly to be apparent, will justify an uncompromising adherence to the written word as the only enlightened policy that can be pursued.”
EDITOR.