The Christadelphian, February 1930, C. C. Walker

“Jesus Christ and Redemption” 

P.L. writes:—I should be much obliged to have the following questions cleared up by any brother in the next issue of The Christadelphian , if possible, namely:—Do the terms or conditions of approach to our Heavenly Father, such as “Atonement,” “Reconciliation,” “Adoption,” equally apply to the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, as they do to the children of men?

Answer .—The question is rather lacking in lucidity. From its last words one might suppose that the questioner did not rank the Lord Jesus Christ among “the children of men.” But, of course, that is not his meaning, seeing Jesus so often insisted that he was “the Son of Man.” The question really is, In what particulars does “the Son of Man” differ from other “children of men” in relation to “atonement,” “reconciliation,” “adoption”? And the answer is, In his being “Son of God” as well as “Son of Man,” and in the perfect sinlessness of his character. As to “Atonement,” which is the synonym of “Reconciliation,” see the pamphlet under that title published from this office last year. The distinction between the Lord Jesus Christ and “the children of men” in general is there drawn according to the scriptures. Jesus was the subject of a change of nature from the human to the divine—from mortality to immortality. But he was never the subject of “ a change of status ” (which is the meaning of “atonement”) from a position of disfavour with God to a position of favour, as are all other “children of men” who are “reconciled” to God in him. “Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” ( Luke 2:52 ). God’s favour never left him, though man’s did. Perhaps it may be permissible to reproduce here the section on “ Justification ” from the aforesaid pamphlet on “The Atonement.”

“Justification”

This word has two senses which should be clearly distinguished: 1, vindication, declaring to be just; and 2, absolution, acquittal, forgiveness, reconciliation.

In the first sense our Lord alone is justified . The spirit of Christ in Isaiah said: “The Lord God will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed. He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with me?” ( Isa. 50:7 , 8 ). And Jesus himself afterwards put it to the Jews: “Which of you convicteth me of sin?” ( John 8:46 ). And though they adjudged him “a sinner” ( John 9:24 ), and with the Romans put him to death as such, God raised him from the dead to eternal life and thus “justified” him in the sense of vindicated him; openly declaring him before all men to be “the only begotten Son of God” in whom the Father was well pleased ( Rom. 1:4 ).

In the second sense of “ justification ” the adopted sons and daughters of God are all absolved, acquitted, forgiven, reconciled to God by His grace through faith and repentance, and (after the sacrifice of Christ) by baptism into the name of Jesus Christ, and by “good works which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them” ( Eph. 2:10 ). The spirit of Christ in Isaiah had likewise spoken of this, saying, “By his knowledge shall my Righteous Servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities ” ( Isa. 53:11 ).

The “justification” under the law of Moses of which Paul speaks ( Acts 13:39 ) was merely a foreshadowing of these things, and the law itself was not designed by God to give eternal life ( Rom. 3:20 : 4:13–16 ; Gal. 2:15 , 16 : 3:2 , 10–11 , 29 ) but to manifest Sin ( Rom. 7:12–13 ). Nevertheless it was “holy and just and good,” and in all its ritual “a shadow of good things to come.” Thus the “atonement” which was elaborately specified had to do with the material altars of burnt offering and incense. In the book of Exodus the Tabernacle in the Wilderness is described—the divinely-specified offering for its construction, the specification for the construction, the description of the manufacture according to pattern, and the ritual by which “atonement” was made for the Tabernacle and all its furniture, and through these for the High Priest and Priests and people of Israel.

In Exodus 29:36 , 37 , God commanded that the altar of burnt offering should be “cleansed” by “atonement.” Likewise the altar of incense ( Ex. 30:10 ; Lev. 4 .), the last passage describing how the “sins of ignorance” of Priest, congregation, ruler and people were to be “atoned” for. The divine formula ran thus: “The priest shall make an atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them.” But the forgiven persons nevertheless died, though God overlooked their specific sins. And in any case there came the annual “Day of Atonement” when, as Paul emphasises, there was “ remembrance again made of sins every year” ( Heb. 10:3 ), whereas the terms of the new covenant were, “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more ” ( Jer. 31:34 ; Heb. 8:12 ). The angel Gabriel described this “substance,” afterwards to be revealed in “Messiah the Prince,” as God’s purpose in him “ to make reconciliation for iniquity , and to bring in everlasting righteousness ” ( Dan. 9:24 ). “For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” ( John 1:17 ).

Jesus Christ himself said so: “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life . For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life ” ( John 3:14–16 ).

As to “adoption”—still less does this term apply to our Lord. If the questioner can get a look at The Christadelphian for January, 1923, the article “Saved by Hope” ( Rom. 8:24 ) will interest him in the comparison of Jesus with the rest of God’s children. The following is a brief extract:—

An apostle says: “Even we ourselves which have the firstfruits of the spirit, groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption to wit the redemption of our body. For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it” ( Rom. 8:23–25 ).

The object of hope here is “the adoption,” called in verse 19 “the manifestation of the Sons of God,” thus: “The earnest expectation of the creature (‘the creation’—R.V., i.e. , the new creation in Christ) waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.” The word whyothesia , adoption, itself means the placing in status as a son, from whyos , a son. It is found in Rom. 8:15 , 23 : 9:4 ; Gal. 4:5 ; Eph. 1:5 ; and in the last two passages is translated respectively “adoption of sons” and “adoption of Children.”

This goes back upon the Son of God himself, in whom all God’s children are adopted. And it takes hold of “hope” and of “body.” So also with the Son of God himself; he too was “saved by hope,” and his salvation had to do with a ‘body’ . . .”

But Jesus was Son of God by divine begettal—a Son of Man made strong by the Father for Himself to effect the aforesaid “adoption” for others. Here is the difference, which no doubt our correspondent recognises, though he may not be able to state it clearly for the guidance of others.