This is one of a number of articles bro John Carter wrote to re-affirm the position of The Christadelphian and the Central ecclesias on the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ, referred to in the first "Time to Heal" article, (The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ, The Christadelphian, May 1939). This led to the reunion in the 1940's of the Berean ecclesias with Central on the basis of the "Time to Heal" articles, (A Time to Heal, The Christadelphian, December 1940).

The Christadelphian, March 1938, John Carter

“Sin, Sins and Sin-Offering”

In The Christadelphian of December last we reprinted some words written by brother Roberts on “The Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ.” This was done to set forth once more the teaching of the Bible on a subject upon which there has always been some confusion of thought. The subject is at the heart of most religious controversies, and this is true in connection with the history of the Truth in the last days. The synopsis by brother Roberts was plainly written and well supported by Scripture, and was chosen for these reasons. But we are now exhorted by correspondents, who apparently do not agree with this synopsis, to go back to Dr. Thomas. But a series of propositions which are demonstrated by Scripture quotations takes us back to the final authority on the matter. All that is true in the writings of Dr. Thomas is based on the Word of God, and he would be the first to say, Prove all things by the Scriptures. But what has he to say on the nature of man and Christ’s relationship to that nature? In Elpis Israel he says:—

“Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh,’ or sin. This is a misfortune, not a crime. They did not will to be born sinners. They have no choice in the case; for, it is written, ‘The creature was made subject to the evil, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected it in hope.’ Hence, the apostle says, ‘By Adam’s disobedience the many were made sinners’; that is they were endowed with a nature like his, which had become unclean, as the result of disobedience.”

“Mortality was in disobedience as the wages of sin, and not a necessity.”

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies in the first place, ‘the transgression of law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and the resolution into dust. It is that in the flesh ‘which has the power of death’; and it is called sin, because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh,’ that is, ‘flesh full of sin’; so that sin, in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man.”

It is possible that having now quoted Dr. Thomas someone will write to say he wrote something else which differs or appears to differ from what we read in Elpis Israel. It may or may not be so. But the issue is not whether he wrote on one occasion that which contradicted what he had written elsewhere. Our concern is to get the teaching of the Scriptures; this, we believe, is faithfully given in the extracts quoted.

“Sin is lawlessness,” said John; it is a state where law is not recognised and obeyed: hence “everyone that doeth sin doeth also lawlessness.” With but one exception all the race of mankind have sinned—have transgressed God’s law. Some in John’s day professed a regard for God’s law but made light of sin; but the apostle dismisses this with the assertion that these are opposites—sinfulness is lawlessness. Because all needed the forgiveness of sins Jesus was “manifested to bear sins,” to do which he must be sinless; hence John adds, “and in him is no sin”—no lawlessness, no disobedience. It is of actions and disposition that John is speaking, as the context both before and after the words show; for John adds, “Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.” Jesus is an example, and those abiding in him follow the life exemplified by him.

It is doing violence to John’s context to take the words “in him is no sin” as proof that Jesus had not the physical nature which Paul describes as “sin.” John is thinking of sin in moral terms; but he does not contradict Paul who uses the word of physical condition. In fact, John makes the belief that the physical nature of Jesus was like ours a test of fellowship. “Every spirit (teacher) that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God,” but antichrist. “Many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. . . If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.”

We must discriminate between “sin,” “a sin,” and “sins.” Paul says God “hath made Jesus to be sin for us, who knew no sin” (2 Cor. 5 : 21). This does not mean that Jesus was a sinner; Paul excludes that, saying in effect, Jesus was made to be sin but was not a sinner. Neither does it mean that Jesus was made a sin-offering. We are aware of the translation of the Emphatic Diaglott and of Macknight, and also of Bullinger’s comments. But facts are unaffected by the mistakes of these translators and writers. We can offset them by the names of Weymouth, Goodspeed, the R.V. and others: and then we have to find Paul’s use of the words. Usage in the Septuagint had fixed a phrase as the equivalent of “sin-offering.” When Paul wanted to say “sin-offering” he used the language which had become fixed by the circulation of that version, just as the A.V. has fixed a number of idioms in the English language. He uses the phrase in Rom. 8 : 3 where the R.V. has substituted “for an offering for sin” for the words of the A.V. “for sin.” The Diaglott recognises this in this place. Vaughan, a patient Concordance worker, has said “the idea is defined by the constant recurrence of the phrase in the Septuagint (more than 50 times in the book of Leviticus alone) for a sin-offering.”

But while Paul says “for a sin-offering” in Rom. 8 : 3, he says “sin” and not “sin-offering” in 2 Cor. 5 : 21. The same is true of Heb. 9 : 28: “So Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time apart from sin, to them that wait for him.” He was not “apart from sin” at the first advent when he was offered to bear sins. The reason is evident: if he had not had our physical nature he could not have been the Redeemer.

In what sense then was Jesus “made sin”? In the sense that “he himself likewise took part of the same” flesh and blood as all the other children who are given him. Therefore “he died unto sin,” having all his life “condemned sin” so that he might be an acceptable “offering for sin.” If we ask where sin was condemned? the apostle says “in the flesh”; on which Dr. Thomas appositely remarks: “Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there.”

The law could not condemn sin; neither can the best of men condemn sin. They loathe it, repudiate it; but are only too painfully conscious of that “evil present with them” which led Paul to describe himself as a “wretched man” because of this body of death. God condemned sin, sending His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh that this might be done. Sin being condemned the way was provided for the forgiveness of the sinner for Christ’s sake.

The truth on these matters has been before the Brotherhood for two generations in the following clauses from the Birmingham (Central) Statement of Faith:—

V.—That Adam broke this law, and was adjudged unworthy of immortality, and sentenced to return to the ground from whence he was taken—a sentence which defiled and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.

VIII.—That God’s promises had reference to Jesus Christ, who was to be raised up in the condemned line of Abraham and David, and who, though wearing their condemned nature, was to obtain a title to resurrection by perfect obedience, and, by dying, abrogate the law of condemnation for himself and all who should believe and obey him.

The literature of the Truth has maintained this teaching. For the sake of those who would examine the subject further we recommend: The Blood of Christ (the best exposition of the subject, in our judgment), The Atonement (which collects the passages which bear on the subject), and articles contributed to The Christadelphian by W.J.Y., ni 1913, p. 531; 1915, p. 106 (Sin and Sin-Offering); 1915, p. 343 (Condemnation of Sin); 1921, p. 489 (Made to Be Sin On Our Behalf); 1922, p. 310 (Original Sin in Jesus).