The Temple of Ezekiel’s Temple, 1887, Henry Sully

“The Parable of the Sin Bearer”

‍ ‍

The beautiful figure contained in the sixth chapter of the book of Isaiah described one whose sin is purged by a live coal taken from the altar (v. 7).

Without question the one referred to must be Jesus Anointed, because he quoted this prophecy in explanation of the use of parables in order that men who were not worthy of receiving the precious gift of divine knowledge should “hear” without understanding, and “see” without perceiving (Matt. 13:10–16).1

Further, the Apostle John quotes this prophecy, Chap. 12:40 and specifically applies it to Jesus, saying:

These things said Isaiah, when he saw His glory and spake of Him (ibid, verse 41).

“He saw his glory,” i.e., Isaiah saw the earth full of the glory of him whose sin was figuratively purged by the live coal taken from off the altar, and who also said, “Behold me: send me” (Isa. 6:8). In this prophecy we have a parabolic representation of the behests of the Father and the response of the Son, a parable not readily understood by those who are influenced by a theory of pre-existence sanctified by hoary tradition. Also the same theory blinds the eyes to the true meaning of the fortieth psalm, which undoubtedly refers to Jesus Christ, because the Apostle Paul in his letter to the Hebrews quotes the words, “Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me) to do thy will, O God” (Chap. 10:7). The words following in this Psalm also indicate that he who thus speaks was encompassed with iniquities which had taken hold upon him, and therefore he needed purgation therefrom. Thus we read:

I have preached righteousness in the great congregation; lo, I have not refrained my lips, O Lord, thou knowest … withhold not thon thy tender mercies from me, O Lord; let thy loving kindness and thy truth continually preserve me.

For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of my head: therefore my heart faileth me (Psalm 40:9–12).

Nor is this the only Psalm which represents the Son of Mary in his relation to sin, of which more anon, and consequently sharing the necessity of passing through a cleansing or “purging” process as indicated in the prophecy of Isaiah. For instance, in the eighteenth Psalm we read of an “upright one” thus:

I was also upright before him, and kept myself from mine iniquity (verse 23).

This could not refer to David, because he was not altogether upright before God, and because the upright one is also represented as saying: “Thou hast delivered me from the strivings of the people; and thou hast made me the head of the heathen (verse 43). A prophecy not fulfilled in David, but will be in Christ. Now since the Son of Mary “partook of the same flesh as the children,” since “he was tempted in all points as they” (Heb. 2:14; 4:15) there should be no difficulty in understanding in what way he kept himself from “his iniquity.” He knew what was in man (John 2:24, 25) therefore he must at all times have possessed perfect knowledge of any thought or impulse arising from the flesh contrary to the purpose of His Father, thus leading him to view his temptations as “iniquities” more numerous than the hairs of his head (Psalm 40:12). While the “iniquity” that took hold of him was in his flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing (Rom. 7:18; Matt. 19:17) the character which he manifested was perfect and pleasing to his Father, hence we read in Psalm 18., “He delivered me, because he delighted in me” (verse 19), and could say, “I do always the things that please him.” Nothing can be more truthfully said than as stated in this Psalm: “He kept himself from his iniquity” (v. 23).

Again, the sixty-ninth Psalm must refer to Jesus Christ because the following statements are in the New Testament said to be fulfilled in Him: “For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up” (verse 9). “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (verse 21.) Now, the One whose burden is foreshadowed in this Psalm speaks to the Father thus:

O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from thee (ibid. verse 5).

The possibility of such an expression and such an aspiration ascending from the Son of God seems unthinkable unless we look at him in the Garden of Gethsemane, and consider him in that agony of mind when he shrank from crucifixion and death. The impulse to escape from that terrible ordeal, and the mental conflict arising therefrom, was in his flesh (Ep. 2:15), yet in the midst of it all he said:

O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Here was consciousness of “will” in himself contrary to that of his Father: of a desire to escape the ordeal, but his mind was in absolute submission to his Father, willing to offer himself upon the tree. How often he may have meditated upon this possibility we know not but who can doubt that in the intensity of his trial he felt that perfect hatred for those impulses which he could not prevent arising, and to which he did not yield. In this situation he may have felt towards God just as that weeping woman, in the midst of poignant grief, who looked up through her tears, and said: “I know this is foolish of me, it is right and good for God to afflict those whom He chooses to become perfect under the rod of His chastisement, so that they may be prepared for that great joy which is to be revealed.”

In view of such a situation the Psalm literally expresses the mind of Jesus Godward:

O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from thee (ibid. verse 5).

To recognise this aspect of Him is very different from entertaining the idea that there was in Jesus Christ any thought offensive to God, or that his character was tainted in the least degree by the corruption to which he was related. Had he passed over the line of injunction there would have been sin in the sense of transgression, but he did not err even in thought. The point of the parable in Isaiah is that he who came to do the will of the Father manifested a perfect character in defiled human nature, from which he was ultimately cleansed.

The way in which Jesus was “cleansed from His iniquity,” is indicated in the prophecy, “One cf the seraphim” having a live coal in his hand taken from off the altar, laid it upon his mouth, and said:

Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged (verse 7).

We have seen that Seraphim are not single individuals, but communities through whom the Father has manifested, or is manifesting Himself by His word (see pp. 99–114). Moreover, we are told that the law was a “schoolmaster.” (Gal. 3:24). Now, Jesus appeared during the Mosaic epoch, “made under the law” (Gal. 4:4). He was ever ready to quote and observe its words. In the sixteenth chapter of Proverbs (verses 27–28) “words” are described as a scorching fire. The prophet Jeremiah also said that the word of God in his heart was as it were a burning fire “shut up in his bones” (Chap. 20:9, R.V.). This effect is produced in those who receive the word of God in the love of it. The conscience is stirred until the heart becomes hot within them. “While musing the fire is kindled” (Psalm 39:3). This fire consumes impulses contrary to the word of God, and causes obedience to the law. This was the result of the operation of the word in Christ Jesus. “He fulfilled the law” (which no other man did) the whole of which was comprehended in two precepts, first, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, all thy mind, and all thy strength,” and, secondly, “thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” To carry out these precepts involved a voluntary offering of self; in fact, if those two precepts are observed, to die for others is a necessary corollary. This hot, burning stone—the living fiery spirit of instruction under the law—touched His lips. He magnified the law, and made it honourable. The observance of the law, with its essential attribute of the exercise of faith, led to complete purgation from sin physically as well as mentally, for of Him it is written:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on, or to, the tree (1 Pet. 2:24).

Seeing that Jesus could not have borne our personal sins in his own body; seeing that he did not commit sin in the sense of personal transgression, the only admissible inference is that sin was crucified in the person of Jesus. This conclusion is supported by the illustration which Jesus himself furnished of his own relationship to sin, saying:

As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up (John 3:14).

Here we have a parallel which may be readily understood by those unspoiled by philosophy.

First, as to the type. The children of Israel sinned. Fiery serpents bit them, and caused death, in consequence of their sin. Those who looked upon a representative, of that which caused death, fixed upon a pole, were healed from the serpent’s bite What then do we see in looking upon Jesus impaled upon the tree? The Apostle Paul shall answer:

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 (Hebrews 2:14).

What is it that has the power of death? Again the Apostle shall answer:

The sting of death is sin: and the strength of sin is the law (1 Cor. 15:56)

Whence cometh sin? Another Apostle shall answer:

Every man is tempted when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed (James 1:14).

These testimonies conclusively show that, physically, Jesus was related to sin just as are all the children of Adam, yet without question, Jesus did not sin, for he was “holy, guileless, undefiled, separate from sinners.” (See Heb. 7:26). But like the High priests under the Mosaic economy he offered for his own sins. Thus we read:

Who needeth not daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then fr the sins of the people; for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself (Heb. 7:27).

Now since impulse to sin arises from the flesh (James 1:14) in response to the wiles of the tempter, the motive power of which is provided by the life blood coursing through the arteries of the body, the only way to abolish such impulses is by death, as saith the Apostle:

He that is dead is free from sin.

In this way the source from which sin comes, its fountainhead, is destroyed. This occurred in the crucifixion of Jesus, who not only destroyed the adversary in Himself by dying (Heb. 2:14; Eph. 2:15–16), but will also destroy the power of sin in others (1 John 3:8.)

The connection between the Sin bearer and the method appointed by the Father for cleansing the altar upon which the memorials of the sacrifice of Christ are to be offered is significant. Just as under the law any human production was unacceptable unless accompanied with a recognition of the element of sin in man, and the means by which that sin is to be removed,1 so also this basic principle is to be recognised when the altar in the Temple of the future age is prepared for use. Thus we read:

These are the ordinances of the altar in the day when they shall make it (or, when it shall be made) …. Thou shalt take the blood (of a young bullock) and put it on the four horns of it, and on the four corners of the settle, and upon the border round about; thus shalt thou cleanse and purge it. (Chap. 43:18–20.)

Although the altar will be fashioned according to divine specification, the work of man in the construction thereof is only acceptable to the Father whet accompanied by the conditions which he appoints. This becomes apparent in the above provision for purging and cleansing the altar. From all time this element in acceptable worship is indicated. In the wilderness when as yet there was not time to prepare an altar of sacrifice, the decree went forth:

An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee.

If thou wilt make an altar of stone, thou shalt not build if of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it. (Exod. 20:24, 25.)

The altar must be of earth or of virgin stone, entirely provided by the Father, upon which no human hand hath wrought, thus indicating that men may not each “worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.” The first attempts to do so ended in a tragedy, when Cain brought the fruits of his labour instead of a sacrifice (Gen. 4:2–8). Even Adam and Eve sought to cover their nakedness with their own prepared fig-leaf, but only a covering provided by the Father was acceptable (Gen. 3:7–21).

The Hebrew word translated “purge” in Ezekiel 43:20., is כַּפָר (Ka-phar) elsewhere translated atonement in at least sixty-three instances out of the ninety-six in which it occurs in the Old Testament. It is also frequently rendered “reconcile” and “reconciliation.” We find it is used in connection with the offering of a ram for “covering” a trespass (Numb. 5:8) and used generally with sacrificial offerings in the sense of “a covering.” The signification of the word thus used in relation to the purification of the altar must be understood in harmony with these occurrences and with the eternal principles of divine justice, which necessarily differ from the opinions of men, as it is written:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (Isa. 55:8, 9.)

In order to understand why the altar in the Temple of the age to come is to be cleansed and purged with blood, one must also be instructed in the means adopted by the Father for deliverance from the consequences of disobedience in Eden. In this connection it is all-important to remember the recorded facts. Adam having transgressed the condition upon which he was permitted the free choice of all the good things in the garden, one inevitable consequence must follow. The penalty for eating of the proscribed fruit, according to the record, was gradual decay ending in death. Thus we read:

In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. (Mar., dying thou shalt die) (Gen. 2:17.)

Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

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. 3:17–19.)

From these testimonies it seems we must understand that the moment Adam partook of the forbidden fruit he became a dying creature, just as a man in the dock is “a dead man” the moment the judge pronounces sentence upon him. Hence his sojourn on the earth came to an end before the expiration of one day of a thousand years (2. Peter 3:8). Thus it is written: “All the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.” (Gen. 5:5.)

Adam having eaten of the forbidden fruit, a new situation was created in which the unfettered prerogative of the Creator came into operation, except as regards the foretold result of disobedience. In order to establish His word Adam and Eve were expelled from the garden lest they should “take also of the tree of life, and eat and live for ever.” (Gen. 3:22.) That significant word “also” implies that Adam had not then partaken of the tree of life even if up to that time the tree had borne fruit. The inference becomes the more apparent when considering a parallel sentence respecting boys unlawfully plucking fruit in a garden. They are discovered while eating the apples, but now the owner expels them from the garden “lest they also steal the pears.”

In the new situation created by Adam’s disobedience two important facts must be borne in mind, first—Eating the forbidden fruit must have created desire in Adam and Eve to which heretofore they were strangers, leading to unsanctioned union which resulted in offspring. This inference may be drawn unquestionably from the curse which followed upon discovering their nakedness, expressed thus:

I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. (ibid. verse 16.)

Secondly—Although expelled from the garden, and free access toy the tree of life denied, yet Adam was not left without hope, because God provided a covering for their nakedness and because:

He placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. (ibid. verse 24, )

Thus indicating the provision of a way to the tree of life, though carefully guarded.

The condition of children born to Adam and Eve as the result of transgression is aptly described by the psalmist thus:

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Ps. 51:5.)

Their relation to sin and death is thus described:

By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.

For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.

Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the likeness of Adam’s transgression. (Rom. 5:12–14. R.V.)

Verse fourteen is explanatory of verse twelve. “Death reigned from Adam to Moses even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.” Inversely, therefore, all men may be said to be sinners in Adam, even though they do not sin personally. All are subject to death in consequence of Adam’s sin, for a baby, incapable of doing good or evil, dies. If it may be said that “Levi paid tithes in Abraham” because “he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him,” so also it may be said that all Adam’s descendants sinned in him, for they were yet in his loins when he sinned. Therefore all his descendants are subject to death, and to the same conditions which supervened when he sinned, i.e., they are naturally born in a state of sin and subject to death unless a way of escape is provided by the Father. Yet Adam’s descendants are not penalised for his sin. As his descendants they are excluded from the privileges which he possessed in Eden. In this respect they may be likened to the descendants of a prince who by some act has abrogated his title to freedom and becomes a slave. In such case his descendants do not suffer a penalty, but the disability of their progenitor descends upon them. They never had what they would have enjoyed had not their father vitiated his title and by his misdeeds led them into slavery. This is their misfortune, not their crime.

The descendants of Adam also suffer all the consequences of his transgression which are transmissible through their physical relationship to him; much more so than the son of a leper who becomes leprous, or the son of a syphilitic who is syphilitic. By nature they inherit the natural impulses of the flesh set in motion by Adam’s disobedience. This would have been an unmitigated evil had not a covering for sin and “a way” to the tree of life been provided.

The Atonement.

Sin having entered into the world, and death having passed upon all men (Rom. 5:12), deliverance from death must be according to the Divine prerogative. Just as one born a slave under State law is only liberated upon the condition which the supreme authority imposes, so deliverance from the state or constitution of Sin which passed upon the human race from Adam, can only come on the condition, or conditions, prescribed by the Father. Those conditions are defined, implied and illustrated throughout the Bible. Briefly the conditions are chiefly three:

1. Deliverance must come through a descendant of the woman.

2. The deliverer must first suffer death.

3. Just as disbelief and disobedience brought condemnation and death, so also deliverance must be by belief and obedience.

Respecting the first condition we read:

I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen. 3:15.)

Interpreting the figures here used, the meaning of the passage is that all descendants of the woman who, like the serpent, lie, dishonour God, and disobey His word will perish. (Are they not called serpents, generation of vipers? Matt. 3:7; 13:30–33.) And that He who is to finally destroy the power of sin must be a descendant of the woman.

Respecting the second condition, in the light of Apostolic testimony, the covering “coats of skins” provided for Adam and Eve and the incident recorded respecting the offerings of Cain and Abel, are significant and instructive. Thus we read that:

In process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.

And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock. And of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering.

But unto Cain and unto his offering he had not respect, and Cain was very wrath, and his countenance fell.And the Lord said unto Cain. Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen. 4:3–7. R.V.)It is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins. (Heb. 10:4.)

Without shedding of blood is no remission. (Ibid. 9:22.)

The inevitable inference from these testimonies is that the reason why Abel’s offering pleased God was because “the offering of the firstling of his flock and the fat thereof” exhibited faith in the promise of a deliverer from sin, who through death should accomplish that deliverance. This feature was entirely absent from the offering of Cain, who merely brought the results of his own labours on the field, probably also filled with pride over his own accomplishments. We can see the embittered controversy which ensued between Cain and Abel (verse 8) resulting in the typical slaughter of the first martyr and the long history of persecuted sons of God by the seed of the serpent from Abel onward to Stephen. (Matt. 23:29–35. Acts 7:51–53.) Now just as the offering of Abel exhibited elements pleasing to the Father, so only will He permit the altar fashioned by man in the temple of the age to come to be used after it has been cleansed and sanctified with blood.

As to the third condition, without obedience there could be no deliverance, thus we read:

For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. (Rom. 5:19.)

When the Father promised to bring good out of evil, He must have known how weak is human nature, and how incapable of self-deliverance from sin. Under the most favourable conditions provided by the Father man has not been able to save himself (Job 40:14.) or to redeem his brother (Ps. 49:7.) Hence it is written:

There is none righteous, no, not one.

There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

Their feet are swift to shed blood:

Destruction and misery are in their ways:

‍And the way of peace have they not known:

There is no fear of God before their eyes. (Rom. 3:10–18.)

Truly this is a dreadful indictment postulating the question, “How can he be clean that is born of woman?” (Job 25:4), and justifying the affirmation that no one can bring that which is clean out of the unclean (Chap. 14:4.) Even Job must have been fully convinced that “his own right hand could not save him,” when he realised his own “vileness.” (Chap. 40:4.) But that which is impossible with men is possible with God, vet only in harmony with his own inviolate supremacy. Hence it is written:

I, even I, am the Lord: and beside me there is no saviour. (Isa. 43:2.)

I am the Lord Thy God … there is no saviour beside me. (Hosea 13:4.)

The living God is the Saviour of all men, especially of those that believe. (1st Tim. 4:10.)

God (is) our Saviour. (Titus 1:3.; 2:10.)

The Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. (1st John 4:14.)

The work was to be accomplished through the “seed of the woman” by God, who long before the appearing of that seed was preparing the foundation for instruction to the man who would have the opportunity of closing the breach between man and God, as foretold in Isaiah:

The Lord saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness, it sustained him.

For he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation upon his head; and he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing, and was clad with zeal as a cloke. (Chap. 59:16, 17.)

Here we have one of those delightful passages of Scripture in which is a double flash of light. In this testimony reference is made to Him who delivers and the agency of deliverance, the “right arm” of both securing the end in view.

‍The initial stage of the preparation of the “seed” commenced with the miraculous conception of Jesus, as related in the Gospel of Luke, Chap. 1:30, 31, 35.

According to subsequent records, the ultimate result in causing the virgin Mary to bring forth a son without the intervention of man, was the production of an obedient descendant from the woman—Son of man and Son of God. This was just as much a special provision of the Father, as were the skin coverings for the nakedness of our first parents.

Although the son of Mary was a new creation, yet, being “made of a woman” He was, as it were, a graft into the Adamic stock, and was subject to all the natural impulses appertaining to human flesh, so it is written, “He hath been in all points tempted like his brethren, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15. R.V.) Again it is written, “Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also Himself likewise partook of the same” (ibid. 2:14.)

From childhood the Son of Mary “grew in favour with God and man,” was “subject to his parents,” whilst also giving heed to higher instruction. (Luke 2:46–52.) Subsequently, after baptism, he received the gift of the Holy Spirit in fulness, and was tempted of the devil in the wilderness (Matt. 3:13–17; John 3:34; Matt. 4:1–4.)

Whence came the “obedient disposition” of this Son of Mary, so different from the first Adam? It could not be because of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit, for he manifested a commendable character before receiving it. His divine begettal supplies the answer. But the character he manifested was his own, just as is the character of children who manifest traits similar to that of their progenitors and who take heed to wise instruction. If his obedience was merely due to the operation of the Holy Spirit, then he must have been an automaton, and bereft of all glory for the deliverance of men from sin. Moreover, others who received the gift of the Holy Spirit were not preserved from error thereby. See the record respecting Saul, Balaam, and some who fell away after receiving the Holy Spirit (Heb. 6:4–6.) The “second Adam” must have been just as much a free agent as the first. The foundation of his obedience was laid in precedent, examples; and in the Holy Oracles, to which he gave heed, and to which he constantly referred in his conflict with temptation, saying:

It is written

“Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

It is written

“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

It is written

“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”

In all things he regulated his conduct so that the Scripture might be fulfilled: for instance, we read:

When the days were well nigh come that he should be offered up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem (Luke 9:51.)

Yes, to the very place where he knew he was to be crucified. And again, in the midst of his agony upon the cross remembering the words in Psalm 69., “They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink” (verse 21.) He said, I thirst:

Then they filled a sponge with vinegar and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar: he said: It is finished. (John 19:28–30.)

To fulfil that which was written of Him is the keynote of his character. This trait shone forth in his first temptation, when he said, Man shall live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God: and was again exhibited after the close of his trials in his words to the disciples, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken; Ought not Christ to have suffered these things? (Luke 24:25–26.)

No wonder, then, of him it is testified:

Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. (Heb. 1:9.)

“Hating iniquity.” We have before considered some testimonies which exhibit this aspect of his character, see pp. 114–115. Too much prominence cannot be given to this attribute of the Son of man and the Son of God. Let us, therefore, further consider it.

So fully was he to realize the sinful nature of his flesh that he is prophetically represented in the thirty eighth Psalm as saying:

There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin

For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me.

My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness.

I am troubled: I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long.

For my loins are filled with a loathsome disease: and there is no soundness in my flesh. (vv. 3–7.)

‍This Psalm undoubtedly represents the mental attitude to sin and the mental anguish of the Son of God in temptation, because the very words of verse thirteen: “I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I, as a dumb man, opened not my mouth. Thus I was as a man that heareth not, and in whose mouth are no reproofs,” portray his actual character. Again the parallel passage descriptive of the sufferings of Messiah in the seventh verse of the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah is definitely ascribed to Jesus Christ by Philip (Isa. 53:7; Acts 8:32.) Our difficulty is to realize in what way the whole of these prophetic utterances could be fulfilled in him, which undoubtedly was the case, for the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35.) He could say:

“There was no soundness in his flesh” because he himself said, the flesh profiteth nothing. (John 6:63.) This testimony is amplified by the spirit in the apostle Paul thus:

“In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.” Jesus also could say:

“There is no rest in my bones because of my sin,” when realizing fully, as he did, that there could be no freedom from temptation so long as he was of flesh and blood nature, and for this reason—“the blood is the life of all flesh,” Lev. 17:2–14; Deut. 12:23, and therefore the cause of all its motions. Until crucifixion, when the life-blood exuded from his wounds, there could be no release from those impulses which are aroused by temptation and which were intensely offensive to him, even causing him to resent the well-meant solicitude of Peter, and to say, “Get thee behind me, Satan (adversary); thou are an offence unto me for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of man.” (Matt. 16:23.) So long as the lifeblood was coursing through his veins he must always be amenable to and in conflict with temptation to sin, for only “he who is dead is free from sin.” (Rom. 6:7.) His:

“Iniquities went over his head” and were “a burden too heavy for him to bear” because without help the flesh was weak and not equal to the conflict, as vividly exhibited when in the midst of his greatest anxiety “an angel” was sent “to strengthen him” (Luke 22:43.) Nevertheless, “his iniquities went over his head” and overwhelmed him when he uttered that last bitter regret, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”1

“His wounds,” as it were, “stank of corruption” because of the foolish nature of the flesh. How troubled he was ! How bowed down! Possessed of this corruptible nature, this “loathsome disease,” this “unsound flesh,” he was “mourning all the day long,” yet looking for deliverance, as expressed in relation to the outcome of his baptism, saying:

“How am I straitened till it be accomplished.” (Luke 12:49–50.)

From the time he stepped out of the waters of Jordan to the day of his crucifixion the Son of God must have understood the significance of his baptism, viz., that only through death could there be deliverance from temptation to sin. The parallel which the apostle Paul draws between baptism and the death of Jesus justifies this conclusion. That parallel, given by inspiration from God, shews that Jesus died to sin personally in relation to himself.

Know ye not that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death?

Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

For he that is dead is freed from sin. (Rom. 6:3–7.)

After transgression Adam was “a body of sin.” This “old man” Jesus and his brethren inherit from him. Physically, Jesus was one with his brethren in this respect—an extension of Adam’s being—“made of a woman.” (Gal. 4:4.) Therefore the “old man crucified with him that the body of sin might be destroyed, ” is that flesh and blood nature whose impulses led Adam to transgress God’s laws, hence Jesus:

Abolished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, making peace.

And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity. (Marg., in himself) (Eph. 2:15–16.)

Thus a dual result was accomplished in His death, viz., deliverance from the power of sin (Heb. 2:14.) and the abolition of the law. (Gal. 3:13.)

The method adopted by the Father for removing the evil which ensued in consequence of Adam’s transgression illustrates His righteousness and unchangeableness. Without abrogating the law of sin and death, the bestowal of the Mosaic law opened the way for the removal of its effects because its precepts brought a curse on Jesus, who fulfilled obedience to its minutest details. In obedience to that law he freely offered himself as a sacrifice, and thus came under its curse, “for it is written, Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree” (Gal. 3:13). Since the law cursed a righteous man, its abolition was justifiable.

He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. (Col. 2:14).

Sin being crucified in Jesus, “Who obeyed the law and made it honourable”;

God raised him up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. (Acts 2:24).

Thus was introduced another law, viz.:

The righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all that believe. (Rom. 3:22).

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God.

To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus (ibid. verses 24–25).

In this we have the most remarkable illustration of the way in which one law may be neutralized by another, after the example of the law of the Medes and the Persians. Mordecai was not permitted to alter the edict given under the King’s Seal for the destruction of the Jews, but another edict permitting them to defend themselves brought to nought the evil designs of the enemy. Similarly, “a law” in our members which leads to sin and death is neutralised and its ultimate effects removed in Jesus and in those who are redeemed in Jesus Anointed.

Here it may be observed that Jesus could not have died as a substitute for others. If the sentence of death due to sin was carried out upon Jesus instead of Adam, the latter should be alive and Jesus should be dead.

Further, since a substitute stands in the place of another, and suffers the penalty or disability of that other, and since we have seen that the penalty for Adam’s sin was gradual decay ending in death (see p. 116), the Crucified One could not have died for Adam’s sin.

Respecting Adam’s posterity, if the sentence due to sin was carried out not upon them, but upon Jesus, that would be in violent opposition to the divine precept:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16.)

In refutation of the theory that Jesus died as a substitute it may further be said:

1. If Christ died as a substitute, no man after his death ought to die, but they do.

2. If Christ dies as a substitute he ought not to have been raised from the dead, unless the punishment due to sin was death for three days; in such case no saviour was necessary.

3. If Christ died as a substitute, all men, good and bad, should equally share the benefit of his death.

4. If Christ died as a substitute there is no place for forgiveness.

5. If Christ died as a substitute all benefits should accrue from his death alone to those in whose stead He died, whereas the believer is saved by His life. (Rom. 5:10.)

6. Lastly, the words “substitute” and “substitution” are absent from the language of the Bible.

But one may say:

      a.   “Christ died for the ungodly.” (Rom. 5:6.)

      b.   “If one died for all, then were all dead.” (2nd Cor. 5:14.)

      c.   “Christ died for us.” (1st Thess. 5:10.)

      d.   “Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust.”

The word “for” in the above quotations, if used in the sense of substitution, traverses the principle of eternal justice, viz., that “every man shall die for his own sin.” But there is another meaning to the word “for.” A man may do a thing for, on behalf of another, without necessarily doing it “instead” of him. To illustrate this see the following quotations:

God hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (Luke 1:69), i.e., on behalf of us, not instead o us.

Christ, who also maketh intercession for us. (Rom. 8:34.) Obviously not “instead of” us.

A substitutional death involves two insurmountable difficulties. The first—eternal death of the sacrifice. The second, freedom from death of those atoned for. This must be a wrong interpretation of the Scriptures because it would exclude Christ from resurrection and preserve his disciples from ever entering the grave.

Again, one may say, Is it not written, “The Lord hath laid upon Him the iniquity of us all?” Yes, but in what way? Physically he did not, and could not, as a substitute, bear the suffering of all mankind, for they still suffer, but the Father who loved His only begotten Son put upon him all the chastening and scourging (Heb. 12:5–6) necessary first to redeem himself (Heb. 9:12)1and secondly to prepare him for the position of a perfect example to his fellow men. “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; and being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Ibid. v. 8, 9.) In fact, in this respect his own personal suffering was not a sufficient and complete exhibition of that which the Father requires all his children to see, for it is written that the apostle Paul was “a chosen vessel unto Christ, to bear his name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel” (Acts 9:15) as an example to “fill up that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ” (Col. 1:24. R.V.).

This aspect of the sufferings of Jesus Christ, first for his own perfection, and also for promoting and creating the mind of the Father in all his children, may be amplified much. For instance, it is written:

Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

Just so. His griefs are the same as the griefs of his brethren: his sorrows their sorrows likewise. Therefore they are encouraged to be steadfast under trial.

‍But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 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.

He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hands. (Isa. 53:4–10.)

All the statements italicised in the above quotations may be understood in the sense of suffering as an example or in common with his brethren. If they are interpreted as meaning that Jesus suffered all the evils which came upon him instead of those he came to save, then we have the anomaly that many of the children of God suffered more than Jesus did, for example, those who were tortured and sawn asunder, stoned and scourged (Heb. 11:35–37.) One of them received “stripes above measure,” having been scourged five times, thrice beaten with rods, once stoned (2nd Cor. 11:23–25) and afterwards put to death (2nd Tim. 4:6), and this may be said of many others. If, on the other hand, we recognise that all Jesus suffered in the days of his flesh was put upon Him by the Father (Acts 2:23) for a double purpose, first, in order to prepare him for the position of high priest over his own house, and secondly, in order to exhibit a perfect example to men, then all things written of him shine with a new light. When we read, “Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows,” we may say that most certainly he did not bear the afflictions of Israel in his person, but we may say that he did bear their infirmities and sicknesses in the manner described in the following verses:

When evening was come, they brought unto him many demoniacs: and he cast out the spirits with his word, and healed all that were sick:

That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bear our sicknesses. (Matt. 8:16–17.)

Again, when we read, “He was despised and rejected of men,” “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth, etc.,” the object to be served in permitting the Son of God to thus suffer, is indicated in the Psalms:

For thy sake I have borne reproach; shame hath covered my face.… The reproaches of them that reproach thee are fallen upon me.… Remember, O Lord, the reproach of thy servants; how I do bear in my bosom the reproach of all the mighty people:

Wherewith thine enemies have reproached, O Lord; wherewith they have reproached the footsteps of thine anointed. (Psalm 69:7, 9; 89:50–51.)

‍In all this we see an example of patient suffering under trial so perfect and complete that men everywhere are more or less influenced thereby, and apart from which the righteous ways of God could not have been exhibited. He “became the Author (Gr., cause) of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.” (Heb. 5:9.) Thus his example under suffering is the means whereby others learn to endure and overcome, for concerning him it is written:

He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many. (Isa. 53:2.)

These premises indicate that there must be some other explanation of the Atonement than that of a substitutionary sacrifice. That which Daniel wrote foretelling the time when the great work would be accomplished leads to an explanation. Thus we read that:

Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. (Chap. 9:24.)

“Reconciliation for iniquity” is illustrated in two incidents preceding the great act of “reconciliation” which brings in “everlasting righteousness.” These incidents help us to understand how the sufferings and crucifixion of Jesus became an “atonement,” and how His offering becomes available for others.

1. In consequence of the children of Israel sacrificing to the gods of Moab, when also one of the children of Israel unlawfully took a Midianitish woman, God sent a plague in punishment for their sins. It is written that Phineas, the son of Aaron, turned wrath away from the children of Israel so that the plague was stayed, because he made an atonement by slaying the Israelite and the Midianitish woman. (Numbers 25.)

2. The roll call of the fighting men of Israel who made war upon Midian showed that there lacked not one of the twelve thousand who went out to war. This remarkable deliverance so impressed the fighting men that they brought an oblation, or portion of the spoil, as an offering to the Lord. “Jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings and tablets, all the gold of the offering was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels,” to make atonement before the Lord. That is, they recognised the source of their deliverance from death by a voluntary offering. (Numbers 31:49.)

These two instances appear to exhibit the root principle of Atonement, viz., a basis upon which mercy is shewn, and a recognition that God alone can save.

a. In the case of the slaughter of Zimri and Cozbi, coupled with the destruction of those who perished in the plague when four and twenty thousand were slain, there was a sufficient demonstration against sin to serve as a warning inculcating righteousness. An example had been made, the object of the plague as a means of instruction and deliverance of Israel from sin has been attained, just as the plague which came upon Israel was stayed when David brought reconciliation by building an altar unto the Lord in the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. (1st Chron. 21:14–22.)

b. In the case of the offering presented in consequence of preservation in the war there was a spontaneous, grateful recognition of the favour received for Him, without whom not a sparrow falls to the ground. This offering is called an atonement.

In Jesus crucified we have a complete exhibition of the principle illustrated in the foregoing examples. Just as the act of Phineas brought “reconciliation,” saving Israel from threatened destruction, so also because of the sacrifice of the Son of God, man is now permitted to live in hope of ultimate deliverance. Just as a crucified Roman soldier served as an example to his fellows, so Jesus Anointed became an example and a foundation for the exercise of mercy to mankind, but that mercy could not be fully available until the one important condition for its exercise was fulfilled, viz., crucifixion of sin’s flesh. In Jesus as in the first illustration, the hand of the destroying angel was not stayed till blood was shed, so not until blood was poured out from sin’s flesh could the power of sin be destroyed. In Jesus also there is an exhibition of faith, without which it is impossible to please God, conjoined with a free-will response in loving recognition of the Father’s love to him.

We have already seen how constantly Jesus responded to the behests of his Father, how constantly he refers to his coming crucifixion, which most certainly was a free-will offering in compliance with his Father’s wish. This may be gathered infallibly from the following statements:

I lay down my life for the sheep.

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 lay it down myself. (John 10:15–18.)

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (Ibid. 15:13.)

Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then shall the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be? (Matt. 26:53.)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. (John 12:24.)

Jesus must have fully understood why his Father required him to die. A reason aptly expressed in subsequent apostolic comment on his sacrifice, thus:

God condemned sin in the flesh. (Rom. 8:3)

He hath made him sin for us who knew no sin

Obviously these two testimonies shew that there is a state of sin, or “constitution of sin” in human nature, that which leads to sin being described as sin. Consequently impulses in man contrary to the will of God are sinful. Does this truth imply that temptation is sin? By no means. There is no law against impulses aroused by temptation if those impulses are resisted, therefore sin is not imputed to those who experience them, otherwise temptation would be sin. Of temptations we read:

Every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.

Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. (James 1:14, 15.)

Here reference is made to three processes:

1. Every man is tempted when be is enticed by lust, or desire.

Into this state every man comes involuntarily.

2. When desire hath conceived it bringeth forth sin. (Matt. 5:28; 1st John 3:15) whether the object of desire is attained or not. Thus it is written:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you that who-soever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. (Matt. 5:27, 28.)

“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer. (1st John 3:15.)

These testimonies are startling indications where sin begins, and are sober invocations to righteousness, because Jesus said:

Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteoushess of the Scribes and Pharisees ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:20).

Here it may be observed that under the Mosaic law judgment was meted out against overt actions, but those “under law to Christ” will be judged for wicked words and evil thoughts. (See Matt. 5:21–30; Acts 8:18–23.)

3. Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death (James 1:15; Rom. 6:23.)

In Jesus we see one who according to the first condition was made sin, i.e., was constituted of sinful flesh or of human nature, but never passed into the second state, for he instantly repelled any and every impulse contrary to his Father’s will, as illustrated in temptation by the devil, by Peter, and in the garden of Gethsemane. Into the third state he passes voluntarily, not as a penalty, because he never transgressed God’s commandments, but in order that he might be delivered from the power of sin in himself, “in that he died, he died unto sin once” (Rom. 6:10.) and also that he might deliver others, “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:28.)

Now since the Mosaic law (Gal. 3:24) is a “schoolmaster” even unto Christ, and was ordained unto eternal life (Rom. 8:10; Luke 10:25–27.) it may be said that Jesus earned eternal life by his life of perfect faith and complete and whole-hearted subjection to the mind and will of God in loving response to the manifestation of the love of his Father to him. He kept the first commandment, i.e., He loved God with all his heart, soul and strength, always doing that which pleased his father. He kept the second commandment, loving his neighbour as himself by permitting himself to be slain—pouring out his soul (blood) unto death—yea, in anticipation of the event saying, This is my blood, shed for the remission of sins, and this is my body, broken for you.

Now also it is written that although the law was ordained to eternal life it was powerless to effect that result and to condemn sin because of the weakness of the flesh. “What the law could not do,” God did in Jesus (Rom. 8:3.) Seeing then that the life blood must be poured out in order to deliver from sin, and seeing that Jesus did not sin notwithstanding the weakness of the flesh, it was impossible for the Father to leave His son in the grave (Acts 2:24) “because he (Jesus) saw the Lord always before his face, he was on his right hand that he could not be moved.” Therefore “his heart always rejoiced.” Moreover the flesh of the Anointed One “rested in hope,” because his father “would not leave his soul in hell, neither suffer His Holy One to see corruption.” (Ibid. vv. 25–27.)

In permitting himself to be crucified, Jesus by his obedience to the law came under its curse; therefore the law which cursed an obedient, righteous man is abolished, and the gift of eternal life becomes available upon the principle of “the righteousness of faith.” Jesus fully exhibited that righteousness, for what greater faith can a man exhibit than permitting himself to be slain believing that God will raise him from the dead? For this reason Jesus becomes a medium for delivering from death those who transgressed under the first covenant. (Heb. 9:15.)

Yet again, if even the righteous Son of God could not be delivered from the motions of sin in human flesh without dying, the law of sin in our members cannot stand in the way of the bestowal of eternal life to those who do ‘not sin after the similitude of Adam’s transgression.’ For:

God hath set forth (Jesus) to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God;

To declare at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus. (Rom. 3:25, 26.)

Just upon the same principle that death passed upon all men on account of one that sinned, so the righteousness of one brings eternal life upon all that believe in Jesus. (Rom. 5:12–21.) In the one case all men are helplessly involved in the results of the sin of one man, through no fault of their own. (Rom. 8:20.) In the other case they become entitled to eternal life through the righteousness of one, by voluntarily confessing their own personal sins and belief in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. (Acts 2:38; 22:16; 8:12.)

The idea of a trinity of gods discussing ways and means of saving fallen humanity, and one of the three asking the others to be sent on a redeeming mission would, apart from its tragic consequences, be very comical. For this third party in the trinity to contract and come forth as a babe from Bethlehem, like the genie of some Arabian story, must invite ridicule in those who expect a reason for the hope of the believer. The fact is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:19), so that from the very beginning when sin came into the world by transgression, the means of deliverance was promised to the woman. She was told that her seed would bruise the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15) and the manner of accomplishing this was foreshadowed in the typical covering of skins obtained from slain animals (ibid. verse 21). In due time the medium of reconciliation was manifested. Thus we read:

He (Jesus) made of a woman, a man approved of God by mighty works and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you … Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain. (Acts 2:22, 23).

In this way Jesus became the Sin-bearer, the Lamb provided by the Father, for delivering from sin and death those who come unto God through him. Moreover, the deliverance from death through the righteousness of faith precludes any glorifying of the flesh. (1 Cor. 1:29; Rom. 3:20–22).

For God hath shut up all unto disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all.

O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!

‍How unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

‍For who hath known the mind of the Lord#? or who hath been his counsellor? (Rom. 11:32–36.)

The foregoing premises and conclusions, may now be summarized:

1. Adam sinned by disobeying one command.

2. He suffered the penalty for his disobedience.

3. His descendants became involved in his transgression, so far as the consequences which follow disobedience, viz., a natural tendency to cherish thoughts contrary to God’s commandments, leading to sin and disobedience. Therefore all Adam’s descendants are born subject to death, and unable to escape from the power of sin and death, because of the weakness of the flesh. Hence it became a proverb in Israel, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” (Ezek. 18:2.) This proverb was an unjust accusation against God, which He emphatically repudiated. (Ibid. 5:25.) But now in view of the method adopted by the Father for “reconciliation” and “atonement,” showing that every man from Adam to Jesus Anointed dies for his own sin, this proverb must pass away.

4. Since the only way in which man could be cleansed from the defilement of the flesh by disobedience was through death, the Father so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son for this purpose,—and without question, a father has proprietorship in his children, and in this case absolutely so. This prerogative and this purpose was vividly illustrated in the offering of Isaac by Abraham, indicating that God’s promise of deliverance from sin could only be fulfilled by the death and resurrection of His Son from the dead. (Gen. 22:2–14; Heb. 11:17–19.) This was not an exhibition of wrath, but of love to mankind.

5. Jesus, the Son of Mary, through the Eternal Spirit, voluntarily offered himself in order to effect this great deliverance.

6. In order to fit His Son for this purpose, and in order to prepare him for the high function which he fulfils, the Father caused him to pass under the rod of affliction, even as a true father so deals with his son.

7. Seeing that Jesus Anointed was perfectly steadfast under affliction, he is to be “exalted above his fellows,” as head of the Church which he redeemed to himself as his own possession. (Eph. 1:12–14.)

8. Two principles are rooted in the atonement, viz., without shedding of blood there is no remission. Without faith it is impossible to please God. These two principles shine forth in every ordinance of the law of Moses, but cannot now be considered in detail. One point, however, should be mentioned, viz., the presentation of blood upon the Ark of the Covenant on the great day of Atonement. According to the Apostle Paul, this covering of the Ark was a “mercy seat” and representative of Jesus Anointed (Heb. 9:4), in whom the Father had placed His testimony (Deut. 18:15–18). His shed blood, therefore, became a “covering” for sin. Just as one who converts his brother from error saves a soul from death and “covers a multitude of sins,” so Jesus by his example and sacrifice leads many sons to glory, and covers over their sins (Heb. 2:10).

9. He (Jesus), then, was not a substitute or propitiatory sacrifice, but one for whose sake the Father shews mercy to sinners, and offers deliverance from death to obedient believers in Jesus. As saith the Apostle Paul:

‍ ‍

“Whom God set forth a propitiatory (Mercy Seat) through

faith in his blood, to shew his righteousness, because

of the passing over of sins done aforetime,

in the forbearance of God.”

Rom. 3:25, R.V.

Those who are obsessed with the traditional doctrine of the trinity will not readily perceive in what way certain elliptical statements respecting Jesus Anointed harmonise with the above evidence concerning his human nature, such as, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father”; “I and the Father are one.” While upon the one hand the flesh of the Lord Jesus was as unclean as the flesh of those he redeems, the same offering for cleansing at birth was made for him as for his brethren (Luke 2:24.) His character was altogether different from others because of the intimate relation which obtained between himself and the Father. When men looked upon him they saw not the image of fallen humanity, but an image of the Father so far as possible for men to behold. While an ordinary man in character is exactly like Adam after transgression, the Lord Jesus Christ was exactly like his Father, because, keeping the flesh in subjection, he always exhibited the character of the Father. There was complete oneness in mind, purpose and action. Hence he said, “I and my father are one” (John 10:30).

This was the only way in which he could then be “the brightness of His glory” and “the express image of His person.” As to anything else appertaining to the Father’s personality we cannot know what the Father is. His substance defies analysis, in this respect we cannot conceive of him in the least degree. Jesus most certainly did not represent the Father’s substance, for he was Son of Man, “made of a woman.” Now when Moses asked for particular information respecting God, the Lord said, “No man can see my face and live,” but his request was granted so far that the glory of the Lord passed before him, proclaiming his name, “The Lord God, merciful and gracious, long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth, keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin” (Exod. 34:6–7). All this was exhibited in Jesus. He did not present to his fellow men an “image” like unto Judas, but like unto God. Just as a meretricious woman is the “image” of abandoned desire, so a virtuous woman is an “image” of chastity. If we do not discerningly distinguish such figures of speech in the Scripture we get befogged, and are unable “to rightly divide” them. For instance, we read that man “is the image and glory of God” (1st Cor. 11:7) evidently only in some special sense. When the Apostle said that Christ was “the “image of God” (2nd Cor. 4:4) he must have referred to the character of Jesus, because of the context in which the expression is embedded. His exhortation to holiness would otherwise be without point. Likewise in the following passages of Scripture:

Put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. (Col. 3:10.)

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son. (Rom. 8:29.)

We all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory. (2 Cor. 3:18.)

Under the operation of the word of God, received without question, apprehended and faithfully observed, the mind is changed. Those in whom the light of heaven shines, are changed as it were from one image to another, from glory to glory. Then they glorify their Father in heaven (Matt. 5:16).

As to the oneness existing between Jesus and his Father this must be a oneness of character, for in order that the disciples might not exhibit the impulses common to humanity, but exhibit the character of God, Jesus prayed for His disciples thus:

Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.

I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17:11, 14, 20–23.)

Evidently from the above testimony in whatever way Jesus was “one” with his Father, that same oneness will obtain between the Father, Jesus, and his disciples who receive and obey his words. Obviously the statement that “I and the Father are one” does not imply what Trinitarians usually suppose.

The parable of the sin-bearer interwoven with the six-winged symbols of Isaiah and John when rightly understood helps us to comprehend the relation of Jesus and the saints to the glory which is depicted in the fourfold symbols of Ezekiel, and the visions of Daniel. We may now return to their detailed consideration.

1PG114.A.1 Compare also Jeremiah, chap. 5:21–25; Prov. 1:22 33.

1PG116.A.1 Exod, 29:36; 30:10; Lev. 16:15–20.

1PG119.B.1 “My God, my God.” Hebrew, Eli, Eli,—literally, My Strength, my Strength.

1PG121.A.1 The italicised words “for us” in Hebrews 9:12 are omitted in the R.V. They form no part of the original text. The verb in this case implies that the redemption obtained appertained to himself personally, at the same time he obtained redemption for all those who believe in him.