Although this topic has been the subject of debate and controversy, not only among the church leaders, but also in the very’ ranks of the Truth for many decades it can never be neglected or set aside as one about which too much has been written. The very nature of the terms used in the Scriptures relative to this subject, and the constant pressure of alien teachings concerning the Son of God allow, yea, necessitate a continuing consideration of this vital first principle.
The importance of properly’ understanding the facts relating to God’s work of redemption through Christ cannot be overstated. They’ are vital to our salvation and a required requisite to baptism. It should be understood, however, that one need not be conversant with all the erroneous teachings of those who know not God to properly grasp the subject before us. Only when those teachings come in contact with the Truth and distort and erode essential first principles is it necessary to search into these to discern their inadequacies.
In reality, the truths surrounding our subject are relatively simple, and are clearly stated in God’s Word. The complexities and intricacies of man made theories relative to the atonement immediately become suspect by their very nature. How clever have been the assaults made against the Truth, as men have set forth cunningly devised fables in an endeavor to substitute their own teachings for sound doctrine. This is not to intimate that all the beauty and depth of the atonement can be discovered without a diligent and patient application of one’s mental and moral faculties. It may well be that no one this side of the return of Christ will grasp all there is to know about the work of the Saviour. What are relatively’ simple are the principles involved. These can be clearly stated and bountifully supported by. Scripture references. There is no lack of proof insofar as the Scriptures are concerned of the essentials of God’s work of reconciliation.
Let us, then, proceed to show that the position of the Christadelphians on this subject find ample support both from the Word of God and from the writings of the pioneers.
“Dying, thou shalt Die”
The sentence passed upon Adam after the first transgression was in fulfillment of the warning which God had made to him in Gen. 2:16-17: -In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” The Hebrew words, “dying, thou shalt die,” indicate a process which would culminate in Adam’s death. Some have supposed that God meant that Adam would die on the very’ date he ate of the forbidden fruit. In order to maintain this position, one must conclude that somehow God had repented, and in the actual condemnation of Adam, had deferred this death to sometime in the future. We need not speculate upon this point, however, since the actual sentence explains quite logically what God intended in this expression. The clarity with which the Lord passed judgment upon Adam is so lucid that we cannot fail to comprehend its meaning: “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return “(Gen. 3:19). To suppose that the Lord had changed His mind about the details contained in Gen. 2:17, and now was passing a different judgment on the man is both unreasonable and presumptuous. Robert Roberts, in his “The Resurrection To Condemnation,” chapter XI, under the heading, “Back To Eden,” makes the following observations:
“The writer goes back to Eden to get a beginning to his argument. And in making this beginning, he reminds us of arguments which we used to have to encounter at the hands of orthodox friends in the beginning of our conflicts on behalf of the truth. He insists that the death prescribed by the law of Eden for Adam’s disobedience was death on the very day. Adam and Eve were to ‘die suddenly’ on the day of transgression. ‘Dying thou shalt die’ is a Hebrew idiom, and does not mean a process, because we read in the same chapter of ‘eating thou shalt eat.’ What are we to say? Is not eating a process? Who can eat an apple without first raising the fruit to his mouth, then biting, then chewing and swallowing, and then the thing is eaten? And is not dying a process in ordinary circumstances? Whatever the process may be, the man is not dead until the process is complete. It is certain he is not dead so long as he is living, and that ‘dying thou shalt die’ is a description of a process, and not the fiat of ‘sudden death’. But it is ‘a Hebrew idiom.’ True: but it is an idiom in accord with literal truth which is not always the character of the idioms of other languages.
But we need not trouble about the idioms. The meaning of the threatened penalty is not left to our construction of an idiom, It is defined with precision in the terms of the sentence actually passed, ‘Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.’ Here is no ‘sudden death,’ but the very process of ‘dying thou shalt die,’ which the writer demurs to on the score of idiom-ship.”
Subsequent to the passing of this judgment, we are told “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (V21). These skins symbolized the covering or putting away of Adam’s and Eve’s sins. Though certain consequences were to follow ( i.e., mortality, pain, sorrow, etc.) the guilt associated with the first transgression was forgiven. In other words, Adam and Eve were reconciled to God through the death of the animals whose skins provided a symbolic covering for sin. If this is not the significance of the skins given for coats to clothe them, then we are at a loss to explain it.
The Nature of Adam’s Descendants
What then was the condition of Adam and Eve when they were finally expelled from the garden? If this can be satisfactorily resolved, then much controversy concerning the nature and purpose of Christ’s sacrifice can be avoided. It will be remembered that it was not until after the first pair were removed from the garden, that “Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived and bare Cain . (Gen. 4:1). When Cain was born into the world what properties did he inherit from his parents? There is general agreement among those in the household of Faith that Adam’s son would inherit his father’s mortality with its attendant sorrows and weaknesses, and a proneness to transgression. But these are physical properties. Was there any thing else transmitted to Cain through his birth? Since Adam and Eve were reconciled to God (through the skin covering) are we to conclude that Cain was born in a reconciled state? Did he inherit reconciliation from his parents? The answer to these questions is transparent. Reconciliation is not something which can be transmitted from Father to son, the reason being that reconciliation is a moral term. God does not impute the righteousness of one person to another. To illustrate this point, consider how men and women become justified (pronounced righteous) before God. Though justification or righteousness comes through association with Christ, it is not the result of God’s imputing Christ’s righteousness to others. This is the doctrine of the church and is closely allied with the theory of penal substitution. The truth of the matter is that we are justified and reconciled to God through faith in what has been accomplished in Jesus. His sacrificial death provided a basis upon which God can forgive repentant sinners and account or reckon their faith for righteousness.
We must therefore conclude that Cain was not born in a reconciled condition. Was he, then, born in an alienated state? Was his father’s guilt (for which Adam received forgiveness) transmitted to the babe when he came forth from his mother’s womb? Again the answer is obvious, Alienation or estrangement are moral terms, and, since they are descriptive of a moral state, they cannot be transmitted to ones offspring. It is just as unreasonable to suppose that Cain inherited alienation as it is to think that he inherited reconciliation. These moral terms are simply not affirmable of a new born baby. Hear what Bro. John Thomas has to say concerning infants in his “Clerical Theology Unscriptural”:
“Infants are without character, having ability to do neither good or evil. They are simply beings innocent of right or wrong, as were Adam and Eve in the epoch of their creation: but, being descended from them after they became sinners and sentenced to mortality. Infants Inherit No More Than Pertains To Flesh And Blood.”
Robert Roberts was in perfect agreement with Dr. Thomas on this matter. In his debate with J. J. Andrews, Bro. Roberts was questioned on this very subject:
- Is “sinful flesh” in itself the cause of alienation from God, before a single act has been committed? Answer: It is the root of the mischief.
- Is it in itself a cause of alienation from God? Answer: As we cannot consider the thing in itself the question cannot be narrowed in that way.
- Why cannot we consider it in itself? Are there not human creatures born who die before they have committed a single act? Answer: Yes, they are mere bits of animal organism.
- 124 Were they not in a state of alienation from God at birth? Answer: Alienation is only applicable to those who are capable of reconciliation.
- I 25. Is it not applicable to any who are unable to do right or wrong? Answer: No, it is a moral relation not affirmable of an unconscious babe. Later in the same debate, Bro. Roberts stated, “Sin in the flesh is a physical attribute, forgiveness is a moral relation. Do not confound the two things.
In the Likeness of Sinful Flesh
“Having now established the sum total of our inheritance from Adam, we may give attention to the nature of Christ. When Paul declared (Rom. 8:3) that God sent “his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh,” it was the apostle’s way of laying emphasis on the identicalness of Christ’s nature to that of our’s. The word, “likeness •• implies that Christ’s flesh (and consequently His nature) was identical to that of those He came to redeem. This is established beyond controversy in Heb. 2: 14 where the apostle, by the accumulation of descriptive words, teaches that Christ did indeed bear the same nature as all of Adam’s descendants: “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.”
The temptation of Christ after His baptism, His ordeal in the garden where He relinquished His will to that of the Father, all attest to the fact that He, too, possessed and experienced the same tendencies to sin as we do: “For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmatives; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” Heb, 4:15). Was this possession of sin nature by Christ a cause of God’s disfavor being manifested toward Him? Did the fact that Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood nature of sinners in any way’ hinder His relationship to God? Inasmuch as sin nature is purely-physical and has no moral connotations, we are inescapably led to the conclusion that its possession was no barrier to the Father’s love and favor bestowed on Jesus.
These facts make God’s unqualified commendation of His Son palpable to us. How else could we understand the meaning of His words on the occasion of Christ’s baptism, and later, on the mount of transfiguration, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.“ Were the mere possession of sin nature a cause for the Father’s anger or wrath, we would be incredulous to the announcement of Jesus, ‘for I do always those things that please him” (Jo, 8:29). But sin nature is not the cause of disfavor. As Robert Roberts wrote in “The Law Of Moses,” page 175: ‘Possessing sinful flesh was no sin to him, who kept it under perfect control, and ‘did always those things that pleased the Father.’ Again, in his debate with Bro. Andrews, he declared, “It is ‘sin in the flesh’ only in the sense of being that which will lead to sin afterwards. It is the impulse; but kept in subjection, it ceases to be the cause of wrath.”
“Without Blemish and “Without Spot”
Thus, the lamb of God, being a specially prepared body, possessing a nature identical to our’s and being innocent of any form of transgression was appropriate to the task of taking away the sin of the world. For this to be accomplished, it required that He, as the sacrificial victim not be in need of moral reconciliation to God. If He did require to be reconciled to God, then He would be in the same condition as we, and also in need of a redeemer. The physical perfection of animals offered in sacrifice under the law foreshadowed the moral perfection of the anti-typical lamb. In order for us to fully appreciate this fact, we must recognize that the physical under the law always typified the moral. Thus, leprosy under the law received special treatment since it represented sin. As Bro. Roberts wrote (Law Of Moses, page 256): “But though burdened with what Paul calls ‘sin that dwelleth in me’, they were not the serve ants of sin, but the servants of righteousness sinners forgiven- lepers healed.“ -incurable lepers.”
The Scripture evidence of the complete purity of Christ’s offering is overwhelming. There can he no question as to the complete innocency of Christ of any type of sin as the following texts attest:
I Pet. 1:18-19
“Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things as silver and gold . . . but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and withoutI Pet. 2:22
“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.I Pet. 3:18
“For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust .1 Jo. 3:5
“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins: and in himHeb. 9:14
“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God..”
The question has often been raised as to why’ God required Christ to die the agonizing death of the cross if He were not deserving of it. We must constantly keep in mind that the type of death Jesus was required to suffer was because of the nature of the work to be accomplished. That work consisted of the taking away of “the sin of the world” through a sacrifice or sin offering. It was for the forgiveness of the sins of others that He was crucified. Consider the tremendous weight of Scripture that speaks of Christ’s being offered or dying for us:
Rom. 5:6
“For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”Rom. 4 : 25
Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised for our justification.”1 Cor. 15:3
“For I delivered unto you . . . how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures.”Gal. 1:1
“Who gate himself for our sins .
The list is virtually endless. But to this we must add the most graphic prophecy relating to His offering for sin to be tound in the Old Testament:
“Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him stricken. smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for out iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”
In verse to, the prophet speaks of the LORD making his soul an offering for sin … “; and in verse 12 of bearing the sin of many.” Can we detect in any of the foregoing passages even a hint that the death of the cross was to atone for Christ’s own nature? We must bear in mind that if His offering was to atone for sin nature, it would mean that Jesus was deserving of crucifixion! His very nature, being mortal and sin-inclined would demand that in the divine justice, He should die the violent death of the cross. Consider the ramifications of such a view. If His nature required a sin offering (just as sins do), Jesus Himself would be in the same position as (other) sinners for whom He died; i.e.; He would stand in need of a redeemer. One would be forced to take the position of blind Israel who considered Jesus to be deserving of His violent death, “stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted,” and who could not perceive that He was wounded for our transgressions” and “bruised for our iniquities.” He would be oblivious to the fact that the LORD “laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and that in the ritual of the sin offering, He bore our sins to the cross. Jesus is spoken of as a sin bearer, not because He possessed sin, but because that through His obedience to the death of the cross our sins can be forgiven. The figure is expressive of the complete result of His offering, namely, the taking away of our sins.
To Declare his Righteousness
The answer as to why Christ died is given clearly in Rom. 3:25, where Paul affirms that He died to declare or reveal God’s righteousness. This declaration of the Father’s righteousness was necessary to show that He could not ignore sin. When this was firmly and openly’ established in Christ’s offering for sin, it provided a basis for God’s forgiveness of the sins of repentant sinners without any apparent violation of His own principles of righteousness. For an unsurpassed explanation of Rom. 3:21-31, the reader is referred to “Paul’s Letter To The Romans” by John Carter, Section III under “The Righteousness of God Revealed.” The very’ sinlessness of Jesus insured His resurrection for the justification of all who came to the Father through Him. How beautifully’ does Bro. Robert Roberts capture the true significance of the crucifixion of Christ (Law Of Moses, page 258) :
.”. . . the death of Christ was the representative condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3), for the declaration of the righteousness of God (Rom. 3:25), in the person of a righteous man possessing the very nature of the race condemned in Eden, with which condemnation, repentant sinners might identify themselves (Rom. 6:4-6), with a view to their obtaining the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 13:38), through the intercession of this very man raised, because of his righteousness, for the justification of all who should come unto God by him (Rom, 8:33-34; Heb. 7:25).55
Did Christ Benefit from his own Sacrifice?
The answer to this question is obviously, yes. He did indeed benefit from his faithful performance in every detail of God’s requirements. He first benefited Himself, that He might be in a position to redeem others. Those requirements necessitated His crucifixion and were requisite to His own redemption from mortality.
It will be obvious to the discerning mind that the benefits which Jesus derived were not, in every detail, the same as those which we receive. For example, we receive the blessing of haying our sins forgiven, while Jesus had none to be forgiven. His violent death on the cross was demanded of Him for our redemption. Had the Saviour demurred to obey this command, His own resurrection and glorification would have been forfeited. That He was indeed commanded to lay down His life for His sheep is manifest in the following passages:
Jo. 10:17-18
“Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I have to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father,”Phil. 2:8
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”
Thus, the Son of God, in saving others, also saved Himself.
There is also the confirmation of the Abrahamic covenant to be considered. . Until that covenant was confirmed with the shedding of His blood, it was not fully in force. Jesus is the seed of Abraham and therefore a beneficiary in the fulfillment of the promises made to the fathers (Gal 3:16). Until the covenant was confirmed in His own death, the promises could not be realized. The Lord Himself clearly established the connection between Himself and the Abrahamic covenant when, on the night of His betrayal he said, “This is the new covenant in my blood.”
The type of death suffered by Jesus was expedient, not because sin nature required it, but rather as) an offering for the sins of others; 2) part of the obedience which the Father demanded; and 3) to confirm the promises made to the fathers. We can therefore see the force of Paul’s statement in Heb. 13:20, 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.”
Flesh — Unclean until the Resurrection
Does the foregoing suggest that the nature of Jesus was different from that of the rest of Adam’s descendants? Not at all. His body was as unclean, physically as theirs. It remained unclean until after He was resurrected and endowed with immortality. The bodies of sin nature of those baptized into Christ are not cleansed by the process. They are absolutely the same after baptism as before, and will remain in that state of impurity until they, like Christ, will experience the “change” spoken of by Paul after the resurrection.
Let us again hear from Robert Roberts ( Law of Moses, page 174):
“The anti-type of the cleansing of the holy things with blood is manifest when we look at Christ as he now is, and contrast him with what he was. He was a mortal Man: he is now immortal. He was a sorrowful man; he is now “full of joy with thy (the Father’s ) countenance.’ He was an Adamic body of death, corruptible and unclean.’ he is now a spiritual body. incorruptible, pure and holy. What lies between the one state and the other? His own death and resurrection. Therefore, by these, he has been purified, and no one else has been so purified as yet. Any one else delivered will be delivered by him, as the result of what he did himself.”
Before His resurrection and glorification, the body possessed by Jesus was one of death, corruption and unclean. It remained so until His purification on the 3rd day when God “raised Him up again from the dead, and gave him glory” (1 Pet. I :10). As Bro. Roberts declared, no one else has been so purified yet This agrees perfectly with the teaching of the inspired Paul who described our present state as corruptible, dishonorable, weak and natural This condition of physical uncleanness will prevail until at last, by the grace of God, we shall bear the image of the heavenly, and be endowed with a glorious, powerful incorruptible and spiritual body
And so it is written, the first man Adam w as made a living soil, the last Adam was made a quickening spirit Howbert that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural and afterward that which is spiritual The first man is of the earth, earthy the second man is the Lord from heaven As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy and as is the heavenly, such are the also that are heaven’s And as we have borne the image of the earthy we shall also bear the image of the heavenly” (1 Cor 15:15- 19)
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One