The Christadelphian August 1910, C.C. Walker

“Sin and Sacrifice”

We are told from Toronto that there are some misapprehensions and misstatements current upon the subjects of sin and sacrifice. It is nothing new; these have always been current and will be to the end. It is now said that some affirm:—

1.—That the word “sin” is used in the Bible in the sense of transgression only.

2.—That Jesus was not “made sin” in being “born of a woman,” but in being “nailed to a tree”—not in the mode of his birth, but in the mode of his death.

3.—That Christ did not offer for himself, but only for his people. That he was not a priest while upon earth, and therefore could not offer for himself.

In reply to (1), it must be said that the affirmation is not true, as will immediately be apparent on reference to the Bible for the answer to the question, What is Sin? “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 Jno. 3:4). This is the primary answer, but it is not the only one. You could not say, “God hath made him (Jesus) to be the transgression of the law for us, who knew no transgression of the law” (2 Cor. 5:21). The word “sin” is used by Paul in this text in both places where we have put the Johannine definition, “transgression of the law.” It is obvious that while this definition will suffice for the last clause, it is quite intolerable for the first, since it is elsewhere explicitly declared that the Lord Jesus was innocent of “transgression of the law,” being in character sinless—“Who did no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22). When “sin” is thus eliminated as to character, proposition (1) above is eliminated also, and only a reference to human nature remains to be understood by “sin” in this text.

Then again it is said: “To him that knoweth to do good and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17). This is the sin of omission, from which also the Lord Jesus was clear, for he knew to do good and did it—“Who went about doing good.” Yet again, the bible uses the term “sin,” not only with reference to “sinful flesh,” but with reference to objects, meats, and sacrifices connected with “the transgression of the law.” Thus Moses says of the golden calf (Deut. 9:21), “I took your sin, the calf which ye had made, and burned it with fire, and stamped it and ground it very small, even until it was as small as dust, and I cast the dust thereof into the brook that descended out of the mount.” And he “made the children of Israel drink of it” (Ex. 32:20). Here the dust of “sin” is associated with the water of the brook that bore it away, and with the people who were pardoned their transgression. Even so the flesh of “sin” is associated with “the water of life” in Christ. Again, in Hos. 4:8: 10:8, it is said by God of Israel, “They eat up the sin of my people.” “The high places of Aven, the sin of Israel shall be destroyed.” In both allusions, the term “sin” by metonymy stands for sacrifices and places related to “transgression of the law.” So it is with flesh and blood. It is what it is because of sin, and therefore it is “sin.” And thus (in reply to proposition [2]), it is enough to point to 2 Cor. 5:21, where it is declared that God made the Lord Jesus “to be sin for us” though he “knew no sin,” that is, God made him partake of flesh and blood, though he was personally innocent of transgression. Dr. Thomas has faithfully exhibited the teaching of the Bible on this head. Thus, in Elpis Israel, p. 116 (Ed. 1903), he says:—

“Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written, ‘How can he be clean who is born of a woman?” (Job 25:4). ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one’ (Job 14:4). ‘What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous? Behold, God putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man, who drinketh iniquity like water?’ (Job 15:14–16). This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, ‘God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin’ (2 Cor. 5:21); and this he explains in another place by saying, that ‘He sent his own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3) in the offering of his body once (Heb. 10:10, 12, 14). Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died; for he was born of a woman, and ‘not one’ can bring a clean body out of a defiled body; for ‘that,’ says Jesus himself, ‘which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6).

“According to this physical law, the Seed of the woman was born into the world. The nature of Mary was as unclean as that of other women; and therefore could give birth only to ‘a body’ like her own, though especially ‘prepared of God’ (Heb. 10:10, 12, 14). Had Mary’s nature been immaculate, as her idolatrous worshippers contend, an immaculate body would have been born of her; which, therefore, would not have answered the purpose of God; which was to condemn sin in the flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished, if there were no sin there.

“Speaking of the conception and preparation of the Seed, the prophet, as a typical person, says, ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me’ (Psalm 51:5). This is nothing more than affirming, that he was born of sinful flesh; and not of the pure and incorruptible angelic nature.

“Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin; especially as he was himself ‘innocent of the great transgression,’ having been obedient in all things. Appearing in the nature of the seed of Abraham (Heb. 2:16–18), he was subject to all the emotions by which we are troubled; so that he was enabled to sympathise with our infirmities (Heb. 4:15), being ‘made in all things like unto his brethren.’ But, when he was ‘born of the spirit’ in the quickening of his mortal body by the spirit (Rom. 8:11), he became a spirit; for ‘that which is born of the spirit is spirit.’ Hence, he is ‘the Lord the Spirit,’ incorruptible flesh and bones.”

With regard to the allegation of proposition (2) that the Lord Jesus was “made sin” in being nailed to a tree, there is no such statement in the Bible. “Christ hath redeemed us (Jews) from the curse of the law, being made a curse (not “sin”) for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). This is quite another idea, differing altogether from the view that would make the Lord a transgressor because he was crucified! (This is the logical necessity of these propositions (1) and (2), though it would probably be disowned by the framers of them.) In fact, the crucifixion was the supreme act of obedience—“obedient unto death.” The fact is, that the law, in the providence of God, thus cursed a righteous man (when he was dead—Deut. 21:23) and laid before the Jews “a stumbling-block” (1 Cor. 1:23), and before all men who became sufficiently enlightened to perceive it, an exhibition of God’s righteousness in the condemnation of sin in the flesh (Rom. 8:3). After the resurrection of Christ, remission of sins was divinely proclaimed in the name of “Jesus Christ and him crucified.” And yet some, professing faith in God, pointed to the cross and “called Jesus accursed” (2 Cor. 12:3).

As to proposition (3) it directly contradicts the New Testament, which says that Jesus could and did offer for himself. In fact it is emphatically declared in Heb. 7:27 that “this he did once, when he offered up himself.” It was, as has been well said, “for himself first, that it might be for us.” Will any affirm that the Lord Jesus was not himself redeemed from death by his own sacrifice? If so let them listen again to Hebrews: “The God of peace brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus through the blood of the everlasting covenant” (13:20). How can his “prisoners” be liberated (Zech. 9:11) unless he first be liberated and possess “the keys of hades and of death” (Rev. 1:18). We listen to Christ: “I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me; but I lay it down of myself” (Jno. 10:17–18). What is this but offering for himself?

As to the difficulty about priesthood, there is none when the subject is rightly understood. It is explained for us in Heb. 9:14, “Christ through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God.” Truly he was not a priest of the Levitical order (“For if he were on earth he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law” (Heb. 8:4). But he was a priest of a higher order—“a high priest of good things to come,” who “by (or through) his own blood entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:11, 12)—“through the veil, that is to say his flesh” (10:20). There is complexity without confusion in Christ. He is Immanuel, God manifested in the flesh; he is the Builder in manifestation (Heb. 3:3, 4) and he is the corner stone of the building; he is the door and the shepherd who enters by the door; he is the sacrifice and the priest who offers the sacrifice, and he is all this and more “through the eternal spirit.” No wonder we find it hard sometimes to understand; but let us bear long with one another, while contending earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Some further instruction on “The One Great Offering” will be found in Dr. Thomas’ Catechesis, where a few pages are devoted to the subject in the form of question and answer.