A.T. Jones: THE MAN AND THE MESSAGE

What "Corporate Repentance" Is Not

Knight dismisses the idea of corporate repentance as "not very helpful" (p. 64). Whether or not corporate repentance is helpful is not in our province here to discuss, but our author gives evidence that he does not understand what the idea means: "It has a Biblical base. Unfortunately, that base rests upon the corporate nationhood of Israel in the Old Testament. Since the beginning of the gospel era God has worked with individuals rather than nations or groups (p. 64)."

Three errors contribute to a misunderstanding here:

1. The author has failed to grasp the 1888 concept of the two covenants. Rather, he holds in principle with the opponents of that era. Righteousness by faith has never been dispensational as he implies. The Lord saved Abraham exactly as He saves us—by his individual faith. Abraham's true descendants were never merely his fleshly progeny; always it was "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." The success of ancient Israel as a corporate nation always depended on the individual faith of its members.
2. He fails to see the Christian church as the new Israel. As a "body" composed of believing members the church today stands in the same position before God as did that nation long ago (cf. Prophets and Kings, pp. 703-715).
3. He fails to give the word "corporate" its true theological meaning. He assumes that it is "a creedal enactment by the church leaders for the members" (p. 64). But it does not refer to legal or organizational "incorporation" through parliamentary law proceedings or hierarchical structure. As a theological term, "corporate" denotes the individual believer's relationship to Christ as the Head of the body, and to all other members of His body. The apostle Paul uses the word thus: "If we have become incorporate with [Christ] in a death like his, we shall also be one with him in a resurrection like his" (Romans 6:5; cf. Ephesians 1:1, 13, etc., NEB).

Those who see the need for corporate repentance define it as personally repenting of sins we may not have individually committed but which we could or would have committed but for the grace of Christ. It is a truth inherent in Christ's righteousness being imputed 100 per cent to the believer. The sin of 1888 is our sin "but for the grace of Christ," just as the sin of Calvary is likewise ours through our corporate identity "in Adam."

If corporate repentance is to be rejected, it must be on other grounds than those advanced by Knight.