Cleansing with blood is a common
expression in the book of Leviticus, but in the New Testament it is found only
in the 9th chapter of Hebrews, and the beginning of the First Epistle of John
(Heb. 9:14, 22, 23; I John 1:7). The latter passage claims notice, not only
because of its connection with the present subject, but also on account of the
difficulties that seem to surround it:"If we walk in the light, as He is
in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus
Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin."

 

It is a canon of interpretation
that whenever the benefits or results of the death of Christ are ascribed to
His blood, the figure thus implied is borrowed from the types. It behooves us.
therefore, to turn back to the Old Testament, and there to seek out the
particular key-picture to which it is intended to direct our minds. In I Peter
1, for example, the second verse will naturally turn our thoughts to the only
occasion on which blood was sprinkled on the people of Israel (Exodus 24); while verse 19 brings us back to their one great redemption sacrifice of
the passover in Egypt.

 

Here then we have a certain clue
to the meaning of the text before us:"The blood of Jesus . . . cleanseth
us from all sin." The particular type in the light of which we are to
understand the word must be that of some offering which was for sin; and
one moreover which was for the people generally, as distinguished from those
which were for individuals; and further, it must be a sacrifice of which the benefits
were abiding. This at once excludes all the offerings of the first fifteen
chapters of Leviticus, and it will confine our consideration to the great day
of atonement prescribed in the 16th chapter.  "For on that day" (was
the word to Moses) "shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse
you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord" (v. 30).

 

We can picture to ourselves some
devout Israelite telling of his God to a heathen stranger, recounting to him
the proofs of Jehovah’s goodness and faithfulness to His people, and going on
to speak of His holiness, His terribleness—how He was "of purer eyes than
to behold iniquity," and how, for acts in which his guest would fail to
see sin at all, He had visited them with signal judgments. And we can conceive
that, in amazement, the stranger might demand whether the people were free from
the weaknesses and wickedness of other men. And, on his hearing an eager
repudiation of all such pretensions, with what deepening wonder and awe he
would exclaim, "How then can you live before a God so great and
terrible?"

 

And here the heathen stranger
within the gates of the Israelite would have reached a point analogous to that
to which the opening verses of John’s Epistle lead us. Eternal life has been manifested,
and life is the only ground of fellowship with God. But "God is
light," and it is only in the light, as the sphere of its enjoyment, that
such fellowship is possible. The light of God, how can sinners bear it? Is it
by attaining sinlessness? The thought is proof of self-deception and utter
absence of the truth (v.8). But just as the question of his guest would turn
the thoughts of the Israelite to his great day of atonement, and call to his
lips the words, "It is the cleansing blood which alone enables us to live
before Jehovah," so the Christian turns to the great Sin-offering, and his
faith finds utterance in the words, "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son
cleanseth us from all sin."

 

It is not "has
cleansed," nor yet "will cleanse," but "cleanseth."
It is not the statement of a fact merely, but of a truth, and truths are
greater and deeper even than facts.

 

But how "cleanseth"? ¹
Just as the blood of the sin-offering cleansed the Israelite. It was not by any
renewal of its application to him, but by the continuance of its efficacy. With
Israel its virtue continued throughout the year; with us it is for ever.  It
is not mere acts of sin that are in question here, but the deeper problem of
our condition as sinners (compare v. 10 with v. 8). And neither the difficulty,
nor yet the answer to it, is the same. In regard to the one, the Israelite
turned to the day of atonement, and said "the blood cleanseth"; but
in case of his committing some act of sin, he had to bring his sin-offering,
according to the 4th or 5th or 6th chapter of Leviticus. But the need of these
special offerings depended on "the weakness and unprofitableness" of
the sacrifices of the old Covenant (Heb. 10:9-18). And I John 1:7, 9 seems
clearly to teach that all our need is met by the twofold cleansing typified by
the blood of the great sin-offering of Leviticus 16, and the water of the great
rite of Numbers 19. For the believer who sins against God to dismiss the matter
by "the blood cleanseth," is the levity and daring of antinomianism.
For such the word is, "If we confess our sins":no flippant
acknowledgment with the lip, but a solemn and real dealing with God; and thus
he obtains again and again a renewal of the benefits of the death of Christ:
"He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness."

 

And this, no doubt, is the truth
intended by the popular expression "coming back to blood." The
Israelite "came back to blood" by seeking a fresh sacrifice; but had
he attempted to "come back to blood" in the sense of preserving the
blood of the sin-offering in order to avail himself of it for

[1]uture cleansing, he would have
been cut off without mercy for presumptuous sin. The most superficial knowledge
either of the precepts or the principles of the book of Leviticus, will make us
avoid a form of words so utterly opposed to both.

 

With one great exception the
blood of every sin-offering was poured round the altar of burnt-offering, and
thus consumed; and that exception was the sacrifice of the 19th of Numbers, so
often referred to in these pages. The red heifer was the sin-offering in that
aspect of it in which the sinner can come back to it to obtain cleansing. And
here the whole beast and its blood was burnt to ashes outside the camp,
and the unclean person was cleansed by being sprinkled with water which had
touched those ashes. But to confound the cleansing by blood—the 16th of
Leviticus aspect of the sin-offering with the cleansing by water—the 19th of
Numbers aspect of it—betrays ignorance of Scripture. The one is a
continuously enduring agency; the other a continually repeated act.

 

 There is no question, observe,
as to whether the benefit depends on the death of Christ. But with some,
perhaps, it is a question merely of giving up the "form of sound
words"; with others, the far more solemn one of depreciating the sacrifice
of Christ and denying to it an efficacy which even the typical sin-offering
possessed for Israel. Christ has died and risen and gone up to God, and now His
blood cleanses from all sin. It is not that it avails to accomplish a
succession of acts of cleansing for the believer, but that its efficacy remains
to cleanse him continuously. (Heb. 10:14) It is not in order that it may
thus cleanse him, that the believer confesses his sin:his only right to the
place he holds, even as he confesses, depends on the fact that it does thus
cleanse him. It was only in virtue of the place he had through the blood of the
lamb that the Israelite could avail himself of the ashes of the red heifer. And
our life, our hope, our destiny, depend entirely upon the enduring efficacy of
the blood of Christ; that, whether in bright days of fellowship with God, or in
hours of wilderness failure, "the blood cleanseth from all sin":here
it is a question only of the preciousness of that blood, and of the
faithfulness and power of Him in Whom we trust.

In view of some erroneous
thoughts which were put at a conference last year it is deemed wise to go over
them that all may be clear on "those things which are most surely believed
among us."

 

One expressed the thought that
he could and did receive revelations at the time. It is clear that only
apostles and prophets of Scripture received such revelations. Now that the
inspired Word is complete, there is no room or need for further revelation. The
Apostle Paul tells us it was given to him to fulfil (or complete—J.N.D. trans.
and others) the Word of God. See Colossians 1:25. Not that he was the last
writer,  for the Apostle John wrote later than Paul; but the capstone of
Christian truth, namely, concerning the assembly, was revealed to and through
the Apostle Paul. We do well to heed the warning in Proverbs 30:6:"Add
thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

 

We do not have apostles today
except in their writings, nor prophets except in the sense of I Corinthians
14:3:"He that¼ speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort."
The apostles and prophets were connected with the foundation as indicated in
Ephesians 2:20. One requisite for an apostle was to have seen the Lord (I Cor.
9:1). Where is the man living today who has seen the Lord?

 

As to the choosing of a
successor for Judas, it is distinctly stated in Acts 1:21, 22. "Wherefore
of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord
Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that
same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness
with us of his resurrection." From this statement we see that Paul could
not be the twelfth apostle, as he did not qualify. It would appear that the two
mentioned in verse 23 were the only ones who did qualify. As the casting
of lots was the common method used among the Jews, Matthias was not chosen by
gambling but by a divine overruling. "The lot is cast into the lap; but
the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. 16:33). See many other
Old Testament Scriptures about casting lots such as Leviticus 16:8, 9 and
Numbers 26:55.

 

To say that not all Christians
are saints, but only those "who by the grace of God have sanctified
themselves," displays an ignorance of the difference between positional
and practical sanctification. In the assembly of God at Corinth, there were two
glaring evils—moral and doctrinal. See I Cor. 5:1; 2 Cor. 12:21; and I Cor.
15:12. Yet it is this company that was addressed by the apostle in I Cor. 1:2
as "sanctified in Christ Jesus, called saints." And he includes
"all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord,"
indicating the epistle is for all saints everywhere.  Hebrews 10, verses 9 and
10, tell us that Christ came to do the will of God, "by the which will we
are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once."
True, our practical walk should be in keeping with the position we have as set
apart by the death of Christ. "For this is the will of God, even your
sanctification" (I Thess. 4:3).

 

When the Apostle Paul said he
had "a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better"
(Phil. 1:23), did he want to go to a place not ready for the saints? Was not
this place already "prepared"?  On the cross, Christ finished the
work that was the ground or basis of His redeemed having an eternal place in
the Father’s house. He is not preparing that place now. There is an
unfinished work of Christ and will be as long as His own are in this scene:
that of High Priest (in connection with our infirmities—Heb. 4:15, 16) and
Advocate (if we sin—-I John 2:1). "He ever liveth to make intercession for
them" (Heb. 7:25).

 

Do we
not need to turn afresh to our Bibles?  We need to take heed and continue in
the things that we have learned and have been assured of, KNOWING OF WHOM WE
HAVE LEARNED THEM. See 2 Tim. 3:14. Boaz told Ruth "Go not to glean in
another field" (Ruth 2:8); and Naomi, who speaks from bitter experience,
told her, "It is good, my daughter, that thou go out with his maidens,
that they meet thee not in any other field" (Ruth 2:22). Can we not learn
a wholesome lesson from these two admonitions?

But I must notice, further, that
two of the Consulting Editors are listed as connected with Bible Institutes in
positions of leading responsibility. This involves an endorsement of such, as
well as of the sects and independency.

 

In the presence of Mr. George
MacKenzie, Mr. George McCandless said to me, when I was on salary representing
a Bible Institute, in perhaps these very words, "There is no Scripture for
a Bible Institute; the assembly should train its young people."

 

This hurt my feelings. But it
gave me the opportunity to offer him some Scriptures, if there were such; this
I failed to do. Why? It did not occur to me at the time; I should have told him
the Scofield Bible was my authority for Bible Institutes! His faithful word did
me good; I never recovered from it. I have always felt, since coming into
fellowship, that his testimony was one of the definitely contributing factors
in my becoming aroused. As a result, I am not so much frightened as some are,
over folks that get their feelings hurt by the truth. Deliverance is a reality,
preceded by struggle likely, and accompanied by pain. Truth hurts when it
condemns; but it also delivers and sanctifies.

 

A year or so later, I was in the
position those two brethren had then occupied, while they had gone into
independency where Bible Institutes are the order of the day. But never mind,
let them be comforted; even if "there is no Scripture for a Bible
Institute," there is a Scofield Reference Bible for it! And, if the
assembly has not the heart to train its young people, the Bible Institute will
do so—though, alas! not to the same end — and the Scofield Reference Edition
will point them in that direction!

 

Perhaps two or three months
after I came into fellowship, an aged brother, who knew little of truth in an
assembly that shortly was classified with the independents, said to me in
substance, "The – – – Bible Institute is a wonderful place, is it
not?"

 

I replied, "Inside the
systems, it is very excellent; but we are outside." Scofield
"helps" would not say that.

 

Several years ago a brother in a
little assembly that was seldom visited told me that he had gone to a Bible
Institute to study. While there, someone met him and inquired what he was
doing. He replied, and was asked, "What are you doing there?" As a
result, he left. Nothing in the Scofield Bible would have contributed thus to
his deliverance; instead, the very first page would have encouraged him to
stay.

 

Not long after I came into
fellowship, a sister who had attended a local Bible Institute before she became
clear as to the path, and was now being urged by its leader to use her
influence to encourage others to attend, asked me, "Should we attend a
Bible Institute?"

 

I replied with a question,
"For what purpose would you go?""

 

"To learn the Bible,’"
she answered.

 

"Are you in assembly
fellowship as a matter of conviction, because you believe God’s Word puts you
there?" I asked her. She responded emphatically, "Yes."
"Will the teaching at the Bible Institute confirm you in that position?"
I then queried.

 

"No," she acknowledged.

 

"Then, why go to the Bible
Institute?"

 

But the Scofield Bible and Bible
Institutism go hand in hand.

 

It remains to notice that all of
these eight names already referred to on the first printed page of the Scofield
Bible are preceded by the abbreviation "Rev.," which as you know
stands for "Reverend." This is a title given to men in human
systems—Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Dissenting—who have been
"ordained" by men to "the ministry." This subject in itself
is interesting, but in this already long letter, I confine myself to one aspect
of it. Another name for the "ordained" is "clergy."

 

We understand that this is what
Rev. 2:6 and 15 refer to under the word "Nicolaitans." God says he
hates the thing (verse 6). It would seem quite an objectionable matter, to
eight times print, at the beginning of an edition of Scripture, a word that
represents what God’s Word frankly tells us He hates. But, it may be thought,
perhaps Mr. Scofield was ignorant of that. Well, it is a rather reckless
procedure for a man, who claims that his notes cover the whole range of
Scripture, to place a word at the very beginning, in ignorance. If he was that
ignorant, could much confidence be placed in his labors?

 

He was not ignorant, however. In
a note, bottom page 1332, he says, on this word "Nicolaitans":
"If the word is symbolic it refers to the earliest form of the notion of a
priestly order, or ‘clergy,’ which later divided an equal brotherhood (Matt.
23:8) into ‘priests’ and ‘laity.’"

 

But in the book "Dr. C. I.
Scofield’s Question Box," page 89. there is no "if" about it. I
quote:

 

"What is Nicolaitanism,
spoken of in Revelation 2:6, 15?"

 

"It is the doctrine that
God has instituted an order of ‘clergy’ or priests, as distinguished from the
‘laity.’ The word is formed from two Greek words, niko, conqueror or
over-comer and laos, the people. The New Testament knows nothing of a
‘clergyman,’ still less of a priest, except as all sons of God in this
dispensation are ‘a royal priesthood.’ In the apostolic church there were
offices:elders (or bishops), and deacons; and there were ‘gifts’:apostles,
prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (Eph. 4:11). These might or might
not be elders or deacons. But late in the apostolic period there emerged a
disposition to arrogate to elders alone authority to administer ordinances,
and, generally, to constitute themselves a class between God and the people;
they were the Nicolaitans. You will observe that what were ‘deeds’ in the Ephesus, or late apostolic period, had become a ‘doctrine’ two hundred years later in the
Pergamos, or Constantine period." (Copied from a copy furnished by a
friend; I do not have the book at hand for verbal comparison and verification
of punctuation).

 

It is clear, then, that Mr.
Scofield knew that the idea of a clergy was unscriptural; that he frankly owned
it was Nicolaitanism, which thing God hates. In spite of this, he takes the
responsibility of putting the hateful symbol of the hated thing on the very
first page of the Bible; not once, but eight times; and even in front of his
own name! Is any comment further necessary? God has declared Himself about
Nicolaitanism. Mr. Scofield assures us that he knows what God means. Then he
does this!

 

I do not want to learn how to
become accustomed to such a thing. I desire to feel more, not less, as God
feels about things. The fact that many precious truths are taught in the notes,
does not change God’s attitude about Nicolaitanism, nor should it change mine.

 

I do not forbid or interfere
with anyone as to using or circulating the Scofield Bible. I do not attempt to
make any issue of the matter, or be conscience for anyone regarding it. I write
this in response to request not remembering that we have ever talked about it.
Practically all to which this letter calls attention is drawn directly from the
contents of the Scofield Bible or else has to do with matters or persons or
institutions named therein. Hence, nothing rests upon my
"interpretation"; the facts speak for themselves.

 

That God will use His truth, I
am quite sure. That He overrules, too, and carries out His counsels amid and in
spite of confusion, is one of my exceeding great comforts. But that the
Scofield Reference Edition "helps" are designed to bring souls to
assembly ground, I have not the slightest reason to believe. Nor do I have
confidence that its use, as a substitute for the written ministry of
"brethren," will build us up along assembly lines, strengthening the
things that remain; but rather, I am convinced, the habitual use of that which
omits the recognition of assembly truth will tend to accustom us to living
apart from it and so cause it to become strange to us. This I regard as the
tendency; results will be modified, in each case, by various considerations;
and God is faithful.

 

I am thankful to at last have
put this material together, so that I may have it myself for further reference.
It is, so far as I recall, the first time I have written along this line. I
deliberately confine myself to this. I do not even enter into any questions of
details of interpretation, or the value or otherwise of specific notes, etc. to
which I have not herein referred.