The Christadelphian, January 1940, John Carter

“Christ ‘Made Sin’”

From the days of the Apostles the subject of the nature of Christ has been a source of contention. Incipient gnosticism with its speculations concerning the origin of evil became mixed with the apostolic teaching during the lifetime of the Apostles, and they had to resist the encroaching waves of false teaching which quietly and subtly spread among the ecclesias. The experiences of the first century have been repeated in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and from the days of Dr. Thomas there has been disputation and strife concerning this subject.

Some would ignore the difficulties, allowing all views a free hearing and leaving it optional to everyone to believe what they wish. But that way would see the Truth quickly submerged. The Truth is only maintained by faithful contention, and however much we dislike contention, earnest men do not hesitate to contend for the faith.

For this reason we return to a subject that has had frequent reference during the last two years, to protest against the teaching set forth in an article in the Fraternal Visitor of October, 1939, where an Australian writer is allowed to express his views on the sufferings of Christ. Our letter file has evidence that the writer is opposed to the doctrines which have been upheld in The Christadelphian. He has been quoted in The Christadelphian as teaching views which were a barrier to reconciliation. The Fraternal Visitor now gives him an open door without comment or protest.

Before transcribing a paragraph from this article, let us reproduce what we quoted in August, 1938:

“I am one of those who believe that ‘the sentence of death imposed for sin’ is the second death, and that we die what is scripturally called ‘the common death of all men’ because dissolution of being is ‘a law of our nature’.”

It will be seen that the writer maintains that the nature we bear is not mortal because of sin at the beginning; we do not share the effects of the transgression in Eden; Adam’s nature was a dying nature from the first. “Dust thou art, to dust shalt thou return” was not a punishment but simply a statement of an existing fact from the day he was created; and therefore we do not die because Adam sinned.

Discussing how Jesus bore our personal transgressions in his body on the Cross, the writer in the Fraternal Visitor article says:

A figure of speech. Our sins are not literally but symbolically expressed in him on the Cross. The symbol may be subtle, but quite intelligible to spiritual discernment. It is so essential to see it in order to have correct views of Christ and of the divine scheme of redemption worked out in him, “For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead. . . . For he (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. v. 14, 21). And again in Gal. 3:13, “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us.” These are significant expressions. “Made sin for us” and “made a curse for us” are synonymous, they mean the same thing. Christ was not “made sin” or “made a curse” until he hung upon the Cross. He was not “made sin” or “made a curse” by being born a member of the human family, though it were necessary for him to be so to be an example for us. Further, Christ was not “made sin” or “made a curse” in the literal sense, for the apostle is careful to say that Christ “knew no sin.” The scriptures are insistent upon the sinlessness of Christ.

To this it must be rejoined that it has been sound Christadelphian teaching from the days of Dr. Thomas that Jesus was “made sin” by being born a member of the human family, and that Paul is not speaking of the same thing when he says Jesus was “made sin” and “made a curse for us.” The first expression refers to the nature in which inheres that tendency to sin, that which Paul describes as “sin that dwelleth in me,” a “law in my members,” “evil, present with me.” The second expression concerns the law, as the context shews. Jesus by birth was made sin: in death, by the very way death came on the cross, the curse of the law fell on him. He was born to take away both the Adamic curse and the curse of the law; both met in him and were removed by him, as bro. Roberts shewed in The Slain Lamb, in which similar errors were rebutted as are now being revived.

The writer further says on the “nature of Christ”:

Concerning the nature of Christ. Christ’s nature was human in the days of his ministry. It was “a flesh and blood nature” (Heb. 2:14). He was “made of a (virgin) woman” (Gal. 4:4; Matt. 1:22, 23), “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3). He was “the Man, Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). His nature was mortal (Rom. 6:9, 10); and yet, we are divinely informed, He was “without spot” (Heb. 9:14); “without blemish” (1 Pet. 1:19); “a holy thing” (Luke 1:35). He “did no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22), and came through the trials of his sufferings “without sin” (Heb. 4:15), being “obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross: wherefore God hath highly exalted him” (Phil. 2:8, 9). The testimony of John is true, “In him (Christ) is no sin” (1 John 3:5), “holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners” (Heb. 7:26). Said Jesus, “Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world” (John 8:23). In short, Jesus Christ was “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14), the embodiment of the Divine Will and Character in human nature. Sin did not become flesh in Jesus; and so, when it is written that Christ, in crucifixion, was “made sin for us,” or “made a curse for us,” we must view such language as figures of speech, expressing how he is to be regarded in his sufferings on the Cross, or what those sufferings represent or signify.

When we know the writer’s view on the origin of death, we can see that in this paragraph he would have us believe “without spot,” “without blemish” are expressions which apply to the nature of Jesus; and that in the days of his flesh he was “holy,” “undefiled” and “separate from sinners.” To which we reply that the earlier expressions refer to his character, and the latter to the days of his priesthood.

It may be said that it is affirmed he was of human nature. But as we have seen, this nature is not regarded as being under sentence of death because of sin. Jesus therefore, since he was personally sinless, in no sense was related to death that was a consequence of sin. And here is the evil of this doctrine. In baptism Jesus fulfilled all righteousness; in his death he declared God’s righteousness; such could only be if he voluntarily laid down his life to shew that God was righteous in involving all in death because of sin. But on this theory, the death of Jesus was a crime from every pont of view. He died because he was killed, we shall be told again. But this ignores the divine aims and objects in the death of Jesus. If he was not related to sin, in either nature of character, if as in the old contention “his life was free,” then a grave injustice was done when he was allowed to suffer on the Cross, and there was no declaration of God’s righteousness as a condition of forgiveness and restoration to favour for others.

“Christ died as an example,” says the writer: he is of course driven to this by the nature of his theory. It is sufficient to answer that he died as a sacrifice. “His soul was made an offering for sin.”

The publishing of such teaching reveals again the absence of that unity between the two sections, without which union is not possible.