After Jesus had been scourged, he was handed over to the execution squad by Pilate. He had known what to expect for a long tine — the terrible climax of all his physical sufferings. For hours, as dark gave way to dawn, and as the crowd gathered, he had already endured humiliating insults and cruel buffetings. A “crown” of thorns had been brutally forced down upon his head. (And these were real thorns, an inch long, if the traditional plant of the crown of thorns is the correct one!) So it was with scarred face, and lacerated back and shoulders, that he followed the Roman soldiers, bearing his cross and stumbling as he went. Before and behind and on either side, they clear a path and keep the excited crowd at bay. In their midst he stumbles and shuffles his way under the weight of the cross, his face a mask of patience and pain.

Jesus, the express image of the Father’s person, is reduced to the state predicted by Isaiah:

“His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” (Isa 52:14).

And further:

“There is no beauty that we should desire him” (Isa 53:2).

Growing weaker, he stumbles one last time and falls prostrate under the burden. The impatient soldiers compel a witness to bear his cross, and rudely wrestle him to his feet again. Soon they are at Calvary, where a hole has been dug in the ground. The cross-piece is laid on the ground and he is placed upon it. Spikes are driven through his wrists and ankles and into the rough wood. Then with its human burden the cross is lifted and jolted down upon the stake, where it is made fast. There, for ceaseless hours, he hangs — his whole body a raw nerve of pain, his senses dazed by the shimmering heat and the clouds and the dust.

“They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death. For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet” (Psa 22:13-16).

He suffered the shame, the physical agony, the draining away of his strength, and a raging thirst. There was dizziness, cramps, fever, and torment. Every movement, no matter how slight, would signal new anguish. Truly might it be said, “His visage was so marred more than any man.”

Isaiah 52:13

“Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.”

This verse is an overview. The four main stages of Christ’s work are referred to:

1. His ministry (“deal prudently”);
2. His crucifixion (“exalted” — cp John 3:14; 12:32);
3. His resurrection (“extolled”); and
4. His ascension, mediation, and coming kingdom (“very high”).

This outline is clearly parallel to Paul’s outline:

1. “The form (Greek ‘fashion’) of a servant” (Phi 2:7);
2. “Obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (v 8);
3. “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him” (v 9); and
4. “That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow… and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord” (vv 10,11).

“Behold” — A trumpet call, demanding careful attention to all that follows.

“My servant” — The Hebrew “ebed” is a slave, as opposed to a hired servant. Unless released, a slave serves for life. The example for all such slaves is Exo 21:5,6:

“If the servant shall plainly say, I love my master… I will not go out free… then his master shall bring him to the door… and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.”

To this the Psalmist refers: “Mine eyes hast thou opened” (Psa 40:6), a passage cited in conjunction with the perfect obedience of the Perfect Servant of Yahweh in Heb 10:5-9, where this phrase is translated “a body (ie, a slave) hast thou prepared me”!

The prophecies relating to Yahweh’s servant are found in Isaiah, from Isa 41 through this section. In these prophecies, Isaiah has been continually contrasting the “national” servant, Israel, with the “individual” servant, the Messiah, much to the discredit of the former. Israel the multitudinous servant has been called to an honorable position of service, but has despised the privilege and failed miserably (Isa41:8; 42:19; 43:10; 44:1,21; 43:4; 43:20). For this they are sharply rebuked (Isa 42:17-20). Meanwhile, Israel is called upon to “behold My Servant” (Isa 42:1); God’s individual “Servant” would accomplish what the national “Servant” could not. Through him the works of the Father, the greatest of which is the redemption and glorification of a portion of mankind, will be accomplished.

Strangely at least from the contemporary Jewish perspective, God’s purpose of redemption requires the suffering and finally the sacrificial death of His obedient servant. This point is reached by stages in the progressive revelations about Isaiah’s “Servant”. First, there is a mere hint of temporary discouragement (42:4); second, a lament over “failure” (49:4); third, personal abuse (50:6); and finally, here, misrepresentation, injustice, and a violent death!

“Deal prudently” — Hebrew “yaschil” signifies “to prosper” (RSV, NEB). The same word is used of Joshua (Jos 1:7,8) in regard to achieving the inheritance of the land of Canaan for himself and his flock; and also of the “righteous Branch” (Jer 23:5) who will reign as a king and save Judah and Israel, and who will be called “The Lord our Righteousness”.

“Exalted” — “Rum”: to be high. Several passages in John’s Gospel equate crucifixion with being lifted up (Joh 3:14; 8:28; 12:32,33), most directly alluding to the brazen serpent lifted up on the pole (Num 21:1-9).

“Extolled” — “Nasa”: elevated as a banner or an ensign. The victory of the children of Israel over Amalek through the lifting up of Moses’ rod (Exo 17:9,11) was commemorated “by the building of an altar called “Yahweh-Nissi” — “He who shall be lifted up”, or “The Lord my banner”.

In a glorious “kingdom” prophecy, the “root of Jesse” (cp Isa 53:21) will stand for an “ensign (“nes”) of the people”, to which even the Gentiles will seek (Isa 11:10).

“And be very high” — Thus the three similar phrases may be differentiated: Jesus was lifted up on the cross. He was then lifted up out of the grave. And finally he was lifted up to heaven, to sit on the right hand of God, from whence he will return to sit on a glorious throne, ruling over all kingdoms!

Isaiah 52:14

“As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men.”

The “as” beginning this verse is matched by the “so” beginning v 15. As many individuals were astonished at the Messiah, so shall “many” nations be sprinkled (ie, cleansed) by him! Here is the multiplying effect of the work of Christ: what a comparatively few witnessed in person, in the streets of Jerusalem and on the brow of a little hill, will ultimately bring blessing to multitudes scattered from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth! And the marvelous irony is this: that which appalled and repelled those who witnessed it will at last be embraced joyfully and thankfully by humble and obedient believers. That which appeared tragic and senseless will be seen to be lovely and wise. Paul speaks of the rationale of the crucifixion, and this irony of the cross, to the Corinthian brethren:

“Hath not God made foolish the things of this world?… We preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling-block and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God” (1Co 1:20,23,24).

That which “the world” saw as scandal and weakness was actually righteousness and power. Paul leads us surely to the conclusion that the salvation of mankind is specifically designed by God to run counter to proud and vain man’s expectations; hence the “astonishment” of Isa 52:14 (and the despite and disesteem of Isa 53:3). His purpose in so doing is undoubtedly to lend man to renounce his “worldly”, materialistic, natural attitudes, and to see salvation on God’s terms, and to see himself in God’s eyes. In the words of Paul again, this was done so “that no flesh should glory in His presence” (1Co 1:29).

“Many” — Not only were “many” astonished, but “many” will finally be cleansed (v 15) by the “sprinkled blood” of Christ. This is further amplified by the “many” who will be justified (Isa 53:11) “by their knowledge of him”, and the “many” whose sins he bore (v 12).

“Astonied” — “Astonished” (RSV), a state of mind manifested by some as early as Jesus’ twelfth year, when he sat in the Temple with the doctors of the law (Luke 2:46,47). The sense of astonishment, however, reflected by this picture of Isaiah is best captured by the alternate renderings “appalled” (NIV and NEB: “aghast”).

“His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” – “Visage” is translated “appearance” (RSV) and is the same word as “beauty” in Isa 53:2. “Form” appears also in Isa 53:2. The latter portions of each of these two phrases are practically identical. The literal is “from being a man”; other versions read “beyond human resemblance” (RSV) or “beyond human likeness” (NIV). This description is comparable to Psa 22:6:

“I am a worm, and no man.”

Indeed, there are many such comparisons between this Servant Song and Psalm 22.

The literalness of this description, as connected with Christ’s trials, is easily grasped. The Temple guard and the Roman soldiers had no regard for delicate sensibilities; and this man — though markedly different from others — was nevertheless a condemned criminal. It is probably correct, then, to think of the Suffering Servant as ending up not only with a lacerated black eye (Mat 27:20), but also with a mass of cuts and bruises on his face, teeth knocked out, and a long red scar across his cheek (Mat 27:30; 26:67; John 18:22, mg; Mic 5:1). Truly “beyond human resemblance”!

Although the imagery of this section is that of a suffering leper (and probably well described the appearance of the typical Hezekiah when ravaged by that disease), it is obvious upon reflection that Jesus could not have literally suffered leprosy. It was prophesied of him that, as “the holy thing” (Luke 1:35), he should not see corruption (Psa 16:10; Acts 2:27). If he were not to partake of corruption even in death, how unlikely that he would so partake during his lifetime! Furthermore, an appearance of leprosy during his ministry would have prohibited him from preaching in the synagogue or in the Temple, and would of course have been inconsistent with the magnetic effect he had upon many, including small children. Finally, there is also the ritual of the Passover, of which Jesus was the perfect fulfillment (1Co 5:7), a lamb necessarily without spot and blemish. We must come to the conclusion, then, that the marring of his countenance and figure must have been effected only in his last trials and crucifixion.

Isaiah 52:15

“So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which. they had not heard shall they consider.”

One who is leprous (Isa 53:4), or is made to appear leprous — that is, an outcast and a criminal — becomes, in a fantastic turnabout, the “priest” to cleanse “leprous” Gentiles! Paul and Peter speak of “the blood of sprinkling” (Heb 12:24; 1Pe 1:2) by which forgiveness is obtained. The “sprinkling” of the blood of Jesus is the fulfillment of the typical sprinkling of water of separation (Num 19), water containing the ashes of a heifer offered “without the camp” (Num 19:3; Heb 13:12), and effective in cleansing those who have come into contact with the dead (Num 19:13). Paul puts this cleansing on a moral plane when he describes the “blood of Christ” as able to purge us from “dead works” (Heb 9:14; cp Heb 10:22). The agency of sprinkling, or cleansing, will extend into the Last Days and the Kingdom Age, when a fountain for sin and uncleanness will be opened in Jerusalem (Zec 13:1; cp Eze 36:25).

The imagery also recalls the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb on the doorposts of the houses of the Israelites in Egypt (Exo 12:7,22; Heb 10:19,22; Psa 51:7).

“Sprinkle” – The RSV has “startle”, but the Hebrew word (“nazah”) occurs elsewhere 19 times, always in the sense of sprinkling for ceremonial purification (ie, Lev 4:6; 16:14,19; Num 19:18,21). It is difficult to see why modern translators should replace the AV rendering.

“Many nations” – The blessing of all nations through the special seed of Abraham (Gen 12:3) will involve the forgiveness of sins as a prelude to the enjoyment of the peace and plenty of the kingdom. All this is comprehended in Isaiah’s previous prophecies about Yahweh’s righteous Servant bringing judgment to the Gentiles (Isa 42:1-4) by being a light and the embodiment of Yahweh’s salvation (Isa 49:1-6).

“The kings shall shut their mouths at him” – The LXX of this expression is used to describe the “marveling” of Pilate (Mat 27:14; Mark 15:5) at the patient silence of Jesus in the face of accusations (cp Isa 53:7!).

We see then from these opening verses, that Isaiah is dealing with one who is going to be exalted and enthroned; who is going to be a King and a Priest; who will endure great sufferings in the process of his work. But the glorious outcome of it will be that many nations will come within the scope of that redemptive work.

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 13 — Phi 2:7,9: This has been outlined above.
2. Verse 13 — Acts 3:13,14: At the healing of the lame man in the Beautiful Gate, Peter testified of Jesus, the “servant” (Acts 3:l3, RSV) whom God glorified. In his speech he made several other statements easily connected with this prophecy: ie, “whom ye delivered up” (53:12); “why marvel ye?” (52:13,15 LXX); and “that Christ should suffer”.
3. Verse 15 — Rom 15:20,21: Paul uses this verse to explain his efforts to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and even to Gentile kings. His work, however, must be seen as only the initial fulfillment of the prophecy. The time is coming when the kings of the earth will all fall prostrate and amazed before the glorified Christ, the one who was first a lamb for the slaughter, but who will then be seen as the Redeemed and Glorified One, and the Redeemer of his people.

The prophet Isaiah served in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. Uzziah was the presumptuous king who entered the holy place and dared to assume the office of priest by the offering of incense (2Ch 26:16). For this arrogance he was smitten with leprosy upon his face, and was thus forced to withdraw from the throne and all public life, and dwell in a separate house for the remainder of his days.

But leprosy was not limited to Uzziah. His great-grandson Hezekiah, in the midst of his years and at the time of a great national crisis (Sennacherib’s invasion), was smitten with a “boil” (Isa 38:1,21). It is generally recognized that this “boil” was a form of leprosy (probably elephantiasis, marked by swollen and blackened limbs resembling the legs of an elephant). The same word described Job’s leprosy (Job 2:7; and cp the description in Job 19:13-21). It was “the botch of Egypt” (Deu 28:27; Exo 9:9-11). The same word also described leprosy four times in Lev 13:18-23.

In contrast, however, to the leprosy of his ancestor Uzziah, that of Hezekiah does not seem in any sense to have been a personal punishment. Rather, as is hinted elsewhere by Isaiah, it seems as though the real “leprosy” of sin had attached itself to the nation:

“Why should ye be stricken any, more? Ye will revolt more and more; the whole body is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it; but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment” (Isa 1:5,6).

The implication is that the righteous king Hezekiah suffered on account of the sins of a wicked nation. These sufferings served to turn a righteous man even more to trust in and pray to God. In beseeching God for a prolonging of life, Hezekiah certainly had in mind the benefit of his people, who would otherwise be left at his death like sheep without a shepherd. (Apparently, Hezekiah had no son at this time, since 15 years later his heir Manasseh was only 12 — 2Ki 21:1.)

So the disease of Hezekiah placed him in the unique position of suffering for the sins of others. His ultimate recovery and healing (practically a “resurrection” from the dead) also put him in a unique role — mediator for the nation, to turn away God’s wrath in the person of Sennacherib’s host (Isaiah 36; 37). And Hezekiah’s lengthening of days for another 15 years provided, in the peace and prosperity of those times, a foretaste of the still-future and even more glorious kingdom of God.

In this brief sketch we may perhaps see the fitness of Hezekiah as a type of Christ — suffering because of the sins of others, trusting in God, raised up from the dead to act as a mediator for his people, and prolonging his days to eternity as king upon God’s throne. In turning to the greatest of Isaiah’s “servant songs” (Isa 52:13 — 53:12), it is well to keep in mind that Hezekiah, then, is the shadow of the substance, which is of course Christ. This beautiful and impressive Messianic prophecy is patterned after the almost equally impressive experiences of his forebear Hezekiah. (Here is the explanation of the past tenses in 53:1-10: the just-past experiences of Hezekiah provided Isaiah with special insight into the redemptive work of Hezekiah’s seed!)

These circumstances in Hezekiah’s life provide the background to Isaiah 53. The king was smitten, stricken with leprosy; the word used in vv 4,8 is the common word describing the leprous condition in Leviticus 13; 14. Furthermore, when a case of leprosy was healed, it was the priest’s duty to pronounce the man healed; and the very word for this in Leviticus appears also in Isa 53: “With his stripes we are healed” (v 5).

A brief list of the most relevant details of this section of Isaiah (52:13 — 53:12) will demonstrate its initial relevance to Hezekiah:

1. “His visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men” (52:14).
2. “He shall sprinkle many nations” (v 15). The alternative suggested by some translators — “startle” (RV mg) — is obviously wrong; the same word appears a number of other times, all of which clearly mean “sprinkle”. Four of these are in Lev 14 (vv 7,15,27,51). The one who is leprous suffers so that others (even Gentiles, a detail certainly much more Messianic than Hezekiac!) may be “sprinkled” and cleansed.
3. “No form nor comeliness” (Isa 53:2).
4. “Acquainted with grief” (v 3) is literally “caused to know sickness”, the same word used of Hezekiah in Isa 38:9.
5. “We hid our faces from him” (v 3) could signify “he hid his face from us” (AV mg). This may allude to the leper covering his face and crying “Unclean, unclean!” (Lev 13:45).
6. The Hebrew word translated “stricken” (v 4) is used 57 tines in Lev 13; 14.
7. “Stripes” (v 5) is the same word as “bruises” in Isa 1:6, which describes the “leprous” nation.
8. “Healed” (v 5) is used of the cured leper (Lev 13:18,37; 14:3,48) as well as of Hezekiah (2Ki 20:8; 2Ch 30:20).
9. “Who shall declare his generation?” (v 8). The words are especially relevant to the king, since he had no son at the time of his disease (Isa 38:5; 2Ki 21:1; 2Ch 33:1). In his own words, “Mine age (or generation) is departed and is removed from me” (Isa 35:12). But, after his recovery, “The father to the children shall make known Thy truth” (v 19); and “He shall see his seed” (Isa 53:10)!
10. “He was cut off out of the land of the living” (v 8) is matched almost perfectly by Isa 38:10,11 in Hezekiah’s song of thanksgiving at his recovery.
11. “He shall prolong his days” (Isa 53:10): Hezekiah’s 15 extra years!
12. “The pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” (Isa 53:10); Hezekiah “prospered in all his works” (2Ch 32:30).
13. The “portion” and the “spoil” (Isa 53:12) point to the wealth and armaments in Sennacherib’s camp of 185,000 corpses (Isa 37:36)!

As we proceed to consider this “servant song” as it pertains to the Messiah, the richness and subtlety of the imagery may be enhanced by remembering Hezekiah the type!

The Very Heart of Prophecy

The last great section of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 40-66) breaks down naturally into nine blocks of three chapters each. Of these the central one is Isa 52-54. The middle chapter is of course Isa 53 (or more precisely Isa 52:13 — 53:12). Further, these 15 verses subdivide into five groups of three verses each (a pattern identical to the 15 “Songs of Degrees” — also products of Hezekiah’s illness and recovery!). The middle set of these is Isa53:4-6. Thus, right at the very heart of the entire second section of Isaiah is the verse that provides the key of its interpretation:

“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” (v 5).

These are but four of the astounding twelve times, in this section alone, that Isaiah asserts that the Servant’s sufferings are for the sins of others (the others: vv 4,4,6,8,10,11,12,12).

An Outline

The five sections of this song may be summarized as follows:

1. “My servant shall deal prudently” (52:13-15)
2. “Who hath believed our report?” (53:1-3)
3. “He hath borne our griefs” (53:4-6)
4. “A lamb to the slaughter” (53:7-9)
5. “The pleasure of the Lord” (53:10-12)

The first section is an overview. The second describes the disbelief of the onlookers. The third and fourth concentrate on the sufferings of God’s servant, first giving the reason and then the descriptive details. And the final section reveals the hand of Yahweh in the whole affair, as the witnesses are invited to receive and enjoy the benefits derived from this unique and perfect sacrifice.

The previous section (vv 4-6) gave the reason for the sufferings of the Messiah. This section gives the facts of the sufferings.

The, figure is continued, from the previous section, of the Messiah as a lamb, or a sheep. The Law of Moses designated the sheep as a clean animal because it chewed the cud and parted the hoof. Chewing the cud, or “ruminating”, applies in the spiritual sense to pondering and meditating upon the Word of God so as better to assimilate it into one’s character. The parted hoof points to the necessity of “making straight paths for our feet”, or walking morally upright, though the way may be rough and uneven. Jesus was such a lamb, “a lamb without blemish”, taken from the “flock” of Israel, and prepared for the sacrifice that would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29).

Verse 7

“He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth” — The parallelism of this phrase is incomplete, and it has been suggested by textual critics that since the word “anah” means both “answer” and “afflict” it originally occurred twice, in both senses, but that one “anah” has “been dropped in transmission. If this is correct, though it essentially adds nothing to the message of the whole, then the phrase would have originally read:

“He was oppressed, and he answered not; and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth.”

“Oppression” is the word “nagas”, signifying to drive or harass. “He opened not his mouth” recalls the Psalms:

“Thus I was as a man that heareth not; and I was as a dumb man that openeth not his mouth” (Psa 38:14).

“I was as dumb, I opened not my mouth” (Psa 39:9).

Jesus was silent before the Sanhedrin (Mat 26:63), before Herod (Luke 23:9), and before Pilate (Mat 27:12-14; John 19:9). On other occasions he actively protested against sin (Luke 4:23-29; John 7:19), as did Paul also (Acts 22:25); here, though the sin was flagrant, he did not.

“He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter” — This phrase, “like a lamb that is led to the slaughter” (RSV), is echoed by Luke 23:1:

“… and led him unto Pilate” —

and v 32:

“led… to be put to death”.

“As a sheep before her shearers” — The figure of shearing is now blended into the figure of sacrifice, a minor variation on the major theme. As the “fruit” of a shorn sheep provides, ultimately, a garment to cover the nakedness of the shearers, so the “fruit” of Jesus’ sore trials and death is a “garment” of righteousness to cover the “nakedness” of sin!

This phrase is quoted in Acts 8:32 by the Ethiopian Eunuch as he reads Isaiah with Philip:

“Like a lamb dumb before his shearer”.

Definite differences appear between the original statement and its citation Where Isaiah has “rachel”, a ewe, matched by the pronoun “her”; Acts has “amnos” (which may be either masculine or feminine) and “his”. Where Isaiah has “shearers” plural, Acts has “shearer” singular. (In this, Acts 8:32 appears closely to follow the Septuagint.)

The female aspect stresses the docility, the passive response of submission. In the sacrificial usage there may also be a clue to its usage here: The sin-offering for a ruler was a male kid (Lev 4:23), but the sin-offering for commoners was a female kid or lamb (Lev 4:28,32). The rulers of Israel were not to benefit from the humiliation and suffering they inflicted upon Christ; but the common people who heard him gladly (Mark 12:37) were to be cleansed by his offering for sin.

It appears also that “shearers” (plural) has a relevance unmatched by the singular “shearer”. Only four men in Scripture are said to have employed “shearers”: Laban (Gen 31:19), Judah (Gen 38:12,13), Nabal (1Sa 25:2,4,7,11), and Absalom (2Sa 13:23,24). Not one of the four was spoken of as a shearer personally, but each had shearers working for him. (This typifies the Jewish elite class, which engineered the “shearing” of Christ, though the actual operation was performed by the “employed” Romans.)

Not one of these four was a righteous man. In fact, in each case the employer of the shearers had at the time of the shearing some evil intention — toward a victim — which intention, however, never worked out as intended:

1. Laban intended to cheat Jacob of his rightful property, but his son-in-law finally left him, taking great wealth and Laban’s two daughters.
2. Judah sought only to satisfy his lusts with a harlot, but inadvertently fulfilled the Levirate function and fathered a son by Tamar in the Messianic line.
3. Nabal boldly and contemptuously denied the rightfully anointed King David. For his trouble, however, he lost his property, his wife, and his life.
4. Absalom hid his royal ambitions in a cloak of righteous vengeance, but the outcome of his murder of Amnon was Absalom’s own loss of favor and exile.

All this reminds us very much of the antitypical “shearing” of Christ. Sheep-shearing was generally performed in the spring, at Passover; it was a season of great rejoicing (1Sa 25:2-13; 2Sa 13:23-29). But for a certain sort of man it was also the time for theft, lust, greed, and murder. And so the leaders of Israel, at the last true Passover, blindly plotted to fulfill this unnoticed Scriptural type of “shearing”: to steal from the Anointed One his rightful title, to satisfy their lusts in assuring their political supremacy, to protect their treasured wealth, and to murder the supposed rival for the Father’s affection. “Now shall the inheritance be ours!” But it could not be, and in the conclusion of the tragedy and subsequent triumph, men like Peter, Stephen, and Paul confronted the Jews with the foreordained outcome of their evil intentions:

“Him… ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain… (but now) let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2; 23,36).

“The Just One, of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers… (but now) I see… the Son of man standing on the right hand of God” (7:52,56).

“And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre. But God raised him from the dead” (13:29,30).

Verse 8

“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.”

“He was taken from prison and from judgment” — “Prison” is “atser”, literally “restraint”, and may simply mean “arrest” (as in NIV and NEB) and not incarceration (although it is possible Jesus was thrown in a dungeon for a brief time). “Judgment is “mishpat”, the pronouncing of sentence “After arrest and sentence he was taken away” (NEB). Compare this whole phrase with Psa 22; 16:

“Dogs have encompassed me. The assembly (‘edah’ — appointed meeting; probably the Sanhedrin) of the wicked have inclosed me.”

“And who shall declare his generation?” — When a man dies childless, not only is his own life cut off, but his name also perishes, not being perpetuated to succeeding generations. In a psalm prophetic of Christ’s betrayal:

“Mine enemies speak evil of me, ‘When shall he die and his name perish?’ ” (Psa 41:5).

But the death of Jesus was the making and not the perishing of his name, though this did not appear so to the Jews and Gentiles of his generation. Multitudes of redeemed ones would come into being through the redemptive work of Jesus. These would be his “generations”, his “seed”:

“He shall see his seed… (the fruit of) the travail of his soul” (Isa 53:10,11).

“A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation. They shall come and declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born” (Psa 22:30,31).

But no one, except the Lord, could “declare” (Heb “siach” — to produce or bring forth) these succeeding generations, because they would be born spiritually and not naturally.

“For he was cut off out of the land of the living” — “Cut off” implies a violent death (Dan 9:26). Literally it means “cut in two” (ie, 1Ki 3:25; Psa 136:13), perhaps as a covenant-victim (cp Isa 49:8 with Gen 15:10). The cutting in two also holds subtle undertones of the garden of Eden, where the Lord God took a rib (or a “side”) from Adam, out of which He made Eve. Thus Adam was literally “cut in two”; one became two, so that two could become one again (Gen 2:21-24; Eph 5:31,32)! The lovely spiritual allegory should be obvious to all. As Jesus “slept” in a garden tomb, out of the “side” pierced by a Roman spear. God fashioned a companion for him — one who would be “child” of the “last Adam” as well as “bride”! “They two shall be one flesh.”

“For the transgression of my people was he stricken” — Recalling vv 4,5.

Verse 9

“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.”

“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death” — At first glance the two phrases seem to be reversed. “The wicked” is plural, recalling the two malefactors, with whom Jesus met his death! “The rich” is singular (“a rich man” — RSV), referring to Joseph of Arimathea, in whose grave Jesus was placed! However, if the connective “and” is changed to “but”, a new meaning emerges:

“He (Pilate) appointed that he would be buried with the (two) wicked men; but (God appointed) that when he died he would be (buried) with the (one) rich man.”

Had Jesus’ body been consigned to Gehenna, as generally with the bodies of executed “criminals”, it would have “seen corruption” (Psa 16:10), which was not to be permitted by God. Furthermore, a subsequent resurrection out of such a “grave” would not have provided the irrefutable evidence of an open sepulchre and “bewildered guards. So Providence overruled the original intention of the authorities. Joseph of Arimathea, a previously secret disciple, was moved against all “reason” to ask for the body of Jesus. Pilate, the same man who signed the death warrant, granted him the “body (Mat 27:57-60). By a remarkable series of twists, then, this prophecy was fulfilled contrary to all natural expectations.

“Because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” – If the previous two phrases are taken to be parenthetical, the “because” links with the last portion of v 8: He was “stricken” for the transgressions of others, because he had done no violence. In other words, it was only because Jesus was without sin that his death could be an atonement for the sins of others. (An alternative viewpoint would substitute “although” for “because”, thus linking this phrase with the immediately The important fact concerning the sinlessness of Jesus is wonderfully illustrated by no less than Pilate himself, as well as other observers, in the scenes of Luke 23:

1. Pilate — “I find no fault in this man” (v 4).
2. Pilate again — “(I) have found no fault in this man” (v 14).
3. And again — “Why, what evil hath he done?” (v 22).
4. A malefactor — “This man hath done nothing amiss” (v 41).
5. A centurion — “Certainly this was a righteous man” (v 47).

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 7 — Mark 15:5: When Jesus was before the Roman governor he “yet answered nothing”, the equivalent of “he opened not his mouth”. Mark’s next phrase is; “so that Pilate marveled”, recalling Isa 52:15.
2. Verse 7 — John 1:29,36; Rev 5:6,12; 13:8; etc: “A lamb to the slaughter” becomes one of the principal designations of Christ in the New Testament, and particularly in the Apocalypse: “a Lamb as it had been slain”.
3. Verses 7,8 — Acts 8:32,33: The Ethiopian eunuch was, as best he was able, a worshipper of the God of Israel. But his physical disability excluded him from the closest fellowship. Therefore, he would be particularly struck by the picture Isaiah painted, of a man cut off without generation, who would yet see his “seed”! How could this be? rut when Philip “preached unto him Jesus” (v 35), the meaning was obvious. Now, in direct contrast to the exclusionary provisions of the Law, nothing could “hinder” him “to be baptized” (v 36). All that was necessary was faith and confession. And the Ethiopian became one of those eunuchs who take hold of God’s covenant, who will receive in His house a name better than of sons and daughters, an everlasting name that shall not be cut off (Isa 56:4,5).
4. Verse 9 — Rev 14:5: The 144, 000 redeemed stand on Mount Zion, commended because in their mouths was found no guile. They have become like the Lamb of Isaiah’s prophecy, who stands there with them. That is why they are there — because a Lamb without blemish has been offered on their behalf, and they have emulated his character, and made his speech theirs.

The final section of this prophecy shows the death of Christ to have been the will of God, because it was essential to the producing of a righteous seed. The reward of Christ is pictured; it is twofold: the inheritance of a “spoil”, and the everlasting joy of fellowship with those whose salvation he made possible.

Verse 10

“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 hand.”

“Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him” — “It was the will of the Lord” (RSV). The death of Christ was essential to our salvation, and was foreordained by God (Acts 2:23; 4:27,28; John 3:14,15). The word “bruise” is the same word as in v 5; “He was bruised for our iniquities”.

“He hath put him to grief” — A grief which he bore on our behalf (v 4). The word signifies a malady or a weakness:

“He was crucified through weakness” (2Co 13:4)…

“…put to death in the flesh” (1Pe 3:18).

“When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” — The stress should be put on “thou”. It is only when one accepts Christ in faith that he can become a part of Christ’s seed. We are the ones who must reach out and grasp the hope offered us in the completed sacrifice of Jesus. As he was “led” like a lamb to the slaughter (v 7), so we must be “led” by his “spirit”, or his teachings, to become through him sons of God (Rom 8:14)! We have an example of how Isaiah’s appeal to the reader fell upon the eyes, and the heart, of one listener, when the Ethiopian eunuch asked, in effect, “Am I allowed to make this man’s life an offering for my sin?” And the response came from Philip, “Only one thing is necessary. If you believe with all your heart, you may be baptized” (Acts 8:26-40).

Each time there is this positive response when Jesus is preached, the prophecy of Isaiah finds a further fulfillment; and Jesus sees yet another one who is the fruit of the travail of his soul.

“An offering for sin” — “Asham” is the guilt, or trespass, offering. Everywhere else the word is used for an offering it is rendered “trespass offering” (Lev 6; 6; 7:1; Num 6:12; etc). The sins covered by the trespass offering were violence and deceit, sins practiced against Jesus (Acts 3:13-15). The One who committed no trespass became the trespass offering for those who did!

“He shall see his seed” — The one who was first of all the “Seed” of God was “planted” in the earth. Joseph of Arimathea and his helpers carried his body from the cross. Weeping as they went, they bore the precious “seed” (Psa 126:5,6) and laid it in a new tomb. The “seed” was planted and watered with their tears, and they returned in sorrow to their homes. Daylight came, and night, and day again, and finally there was a stirring! The annual miracle of sowing and reaping found its counterpart in a “harvest” of the highest order. Christ was raised from the dead to become the “firstfruits” of them that sleep (1Co 15:20), the guarantee of a more numerous harvest to come.

“Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit” (John 12:24).

“He shall prolong his days” — Moses spoke to the people of Israel of the kind of king that should rule over them. He should not multiply horses or wealth or wives, and he should write out a copy of the law, that he might read therein and keep it. Such a king would “prolong his days in his kingdom, he, and his children, in the midst of Israel” (Deu 17:20). Such a king would, in fact, receive “length of days for ever and ever” (Psa 21:4), and his throne would be an everlasting throne (45:6). All this would be possible for the one who could say:

“I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death” (Rev 1:18)… the one who has “the power of an endless life” (Heb 7:16).

“And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand” — The word for pleasure” is “chephets”, similar to the word “pleased” earlier in the verse. It is translated “will” by the RSV. It is elsewhere translated “purpose” (Ecc 3:1,17; 8:6). Those things which “please” God are those things which fulfill His purpose. He has no “pleasure” in the death of the wicked (Eze 18:32); but, marvelously, He finds “pleasure” in the death of a perfectly righteous Son, because that death brings salvation to others!

Verse 11

“He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied; by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

“He shall see of the travail of his soul” — “The fruit of the travail of his soul” (RSV). It was decreed of man by the Adamic curse that only by the sweat of his brow, only by sore travail, would he wrest bread from the soil. By the travail of his soul, and the sweat of Gethsemane, Jesus persevered under the curse and finally produced the “fruit”, the “bread” of eternal life. We are that “one bread”, that “one body”, the fruit of his travail.

“By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many” — “By the knowledge of him” is probably the best way to read this phrase. Those who would make this man’s life an offering for their own sins must know of him; this knowledge must lead them to repentance, confession, and baptism. Knowledge of Christ is essential to salvation:

“This is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent” (John 17:3).

So Paul endeavored to “know him” (Phi 3:10), “in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col 2:3). The people of Israel were destroyed for lack of the knowledge of God (Hos 4:1,6).

This is the last of 20 references in Isa 40-53 to the “Servant” (singular). This marks the transition; the work of God’s singular Servant has now climaxed in the justification of “many”. Isa 54-66 has no more references to the “Servant” but eleven references to “servants” plural!

Verse 12

“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

“Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great” — “Great” is “rab”, identical to the “many” of v 11 and that of the latter part of this verse. Jesus will divide his portion, or inheritance, with the same ones, the “many” who have been justified by their knowledge of him (v 11), the “many” whose sins he bore (v 12). The “portion” is the inheritance of life and glory and joy in the Kingdom. The companion-prophecy of Psa 22 speaks of this portion:

“The meek shall eat and be satisfied; they shall praise the Lord” (v 25).

The portion is the “feast of fat things”, enjoyed on Mount Zion when death is swallowed up in victory, and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces (Isa 24:23; 25:6-8; 1Co 15:54; Rev 21:4). This great carriage Supper of the Lamb is typified by the miracles of the loaves and fishes, and also by the memorial feast — in which Christ has divided portions with us, the “many” who are ransomed by his blood.

“And he shall divide the spoil with the strong” — This phrase is echoed by Jesus’ brief parable:

“How can one enter into a strong man’s house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? And then he will spoil his house” (Mat 12:29).

This parable was given in the context of Jesus’ miraculous healings. The “strong man” is the personification of sin and death (Heb 2:14). Only one is stronger than he, and that is the One who has conquered death. The healing of demoniacs by Jesus was a bringing near to man of the Kingdom, a foretaste of the powers of the age to come, when he will wrest his redeemed ones (the “spoil”!) from the hand of the “strong one” Death.

“And he was numbered with the transgressors” — One of the greatest ironies is that the only perfect man was consistently accused of sin, and finally came to a criminal’s death. During his ministry Jesus was labeled a “blasphemer, a sabbath-breaker, a winebibber, and a colleague of “Beelzebub”. His friendship with social outcasts was pointed to as a sign of his depravity. All who believed on him were to be put out of the synagogue (John 9:22). He was hunted and threatened constantly. The climax, of course, came with his crucifixion between two thieves, as if he were the worst of the three. His countrymen asked for the release of a murderer and rebel instead of him.

Why was this so? If we will ask ourselves this, as we stand at the foot of the cross, the answer will come. We are the criminals! We are the ones deserving of torturous, violent death! All that the perfect man endured was for our sakes, because of our sins.

For the man who blasphemed God’s Holy Raise, Christ spent sleepless nights in prayer. For the man who coveted, and even took, his neighbor’s wife, Christ denied himself all fleshly indulgences. For the man who in hot anger or cold hatred slew his brother, Christ bore the Roman scourge that tore his flesh and exposed his bones and nerves. And for us, “righteous” as we might be in the ordinary “middle-of-the-road” sense, but sinners at heart if we would but admit it, consumed with petty jealousies and grumblings, unthankful, lazy, and often indifferent — yes, for people like us — Christ, the holiest of all men, groaned and bled and died.

But even while we are cast down and humiliated by this recognition, let us be lifted up and encouraged because through this man who was numbered with the transgressors, God has reconciled us to Himself. Thanks be to God for His unutterable gift!

“And made intercession for the transgressors” — The one who died for us has been raised from the dead for our justification (Rom 4:25). As a high priest at the right hand of God in heaven, he intercedes for us. The one who, while in the flesh, experienced every weakness and sorrow, yet without sinning (Heb 4:15,16), is able now to save “to the uttermost” those who come to God through him, since he lives always (7:25,26). All his life fitted him expressly for this task, to be merciful and sympathetic of us his brethren.

New Testament Quotations

1. Verse 11 — Rom 5:19: “So by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” is probably a citation of “My righteous Servant shall justify (or, make righteous) many”.
2. Verse 12 — Mark 15:28; Luke 22:37: Jesus crucified between two thieves.
3. Verse 12 — Mat 26:28: “For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.” Jesus was the righteous “Servant” who gave his life a ransom for “many”. We should never read that word “many” as it occurs in the gospel records without thinking of Isaiah 53.
4. Verse 12 — Heb 9:28: “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many.”

* * *

It would be a great pity if our understanding of the cross of Christ were confined to the controversial issues that have so plagued Christadelphians from their very beginning. It is true that error regarding the nature and sacrifice of Christ must be resisted. But there is a danger that we may exhaust our efforts in argumentation alone, and fail to grasp the other aspects of this great subject, aspects that should touch our hearts!

To this end Isaiah 53 is invaluable. We must not read this prophecy in a cold intellectual fashion. Rather, we should be lifted to spiritual heights; our emotions must be touched; our lives must be changed, as we strive in some small way to reciprocate the unearthly love shown toward us. All we like sheep have gone astray, and the Lord hath laid on one man the iniquity of us all. Let us examine ourselves, let us purge out all evil desires, and let us return to the Great Shepherd. His hand is stretched out still.

The picture we see of Christ is different now. It is the same face — as portrayed by Isaiah, the same strong character, the same compassion, the same tenderness. But the lines of sorrow and grief are gone. The visage that was so marred has now taken on a beauty surpassing all the sons of Adam, a radiant joy unknown to mortals. He is the firstborn of the family of God; and we have been called to be his brothers and sisters.

[This article is extracted in large part from GV Growcott’s “Atonement: The Use and Meaning of the Word”, Ber 65:309-313.]

The word ‘atonement’ occurs eighty-one times in the Old Testament, and once in the New, in the AV.

English definitions

According to Webster, the English meaning of ‘atonement’ is:

1. reconciliation, the restoration of friendly relations (this is the original meaning, now obsolete);
2. a theological doctrine concerning the reconciliation of God and man;
3. reparation, or satisfaction (that is, the doing of something, or the paying of some penalty, to compensate for some wrong action).

It should be noted that originally atonement simply meant reconciliation, was not a theological word, and did not in itself convey the idea of reparation, expiation, or some compensating action or payment.

This (original) meaning [ie, #1 above] appears to be the AV meaning. From other extra-Biblical uses of the English word at the time the AV was translated, this appears to have been the meaning of the word in the 1600s. This somewhat clarifies the Scriptural use, and removes one aspect of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. For we should remove from the word the idea of compensation or reparation, which is the basis of the orthodox theory of substitution. The introduction of this theory appears to have corrupted the original common meaning of the word. (This should not be surprising. The apostasy’s false teachings have corrupted the meanings of many good Bible words: baptism, hell, soul, kingdom, devil, Holy Spirit, and so forth.)

But even ‘reconciliation’ does not represent properly the Hebrew word translated ‘atonement’, for ‘reconciliation’ as we commonly use it implies a moral relation and personal estrangement, whereas the Hebrew has no such implication. (Accountants do use ‘reconciliation’ in strictly non-moral, inanimate connections, as ‘reconciling’ a bank statement, for example. Here the sense is simply to bring into factual or material conformity, without any moral implications whatsoever.)

So much for the meanings of the English words, which are not important in themselves in searching out Scriptural meanings, but only insofar as they color — correctly or incorrectly — our understanding of the Scriptural terms.

Bible definitions

The Hebrew word, wherever ‘atonement’ occurs in the AV, is “kaphar” (root meaning: ‘to cover’) or “kippoorim” (plural ‘coverings’). [See Aside.] This has the same root; as “kapporeth”, the ‘lid’ or ‘cover’ of the ark always in the AV translated “mercy seat”. [See Aside 2.]

[Aside: “Cover” is almost universally regarded as the root meaning of “kaphar”, and this fits with its literal use in Gen 6:14, but some consider the root meaning to be “wash away” or “cleanse”. This, if correct, would be even more fitting in its symbolic use. In many of the examples to be cited in the text this idea of cleansing is the basic one, and the AV several times uses “cleanse” or “purge” in translation of “kaphar”. Certainly Christ is both a “cover” and a “cleansing” for his people. These are related concepts, but “cleanse” seems to be the deeper one.]

[Aside 2: “Mercy seat” was first used by Tyndale, literally translating Luther’s “Gnadenstuhl”, from the LXX “hilasterion”, place of reconciliation.]

The first use of “kaphar” is in Gen 6:14, where it is translated “pitch”, but in the sense of ‘cover with pitch’. This is the only place where “kaphar” is used literally and neutrally as ‘cover’. In all other places it is used of a figurative covering, and in relation to some uncleanness in a thing or person.

Thus “kaphar” is not restricted to moral relations, or to the need for repentance and forgiveness and personal reconciliation. It does not necessarily imply guilt or error. It is used for the figurative or ceremonial cleansing and purifying of inanimate objects, as concerning the original cleansing of the altar when it was first constructed: “And thou shalt offer every day a bullock for a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it” (Exo 29:36).

In Lev 14:34-53 are instructions for the cleansing of an infection-defiled house, and in this case there is no direct relation to any sin or guilt: “And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar wood, and scarlet, and hyssop… and he shall cleanse the house with the blood of the bird… but he shall let go the living bird out of the city into the open fields, and make an atonement for the house” (vv 49.52,53).

Other instances of inanimate atonements are as follows:

• Exo 30:10: the altar of incense
• Lev 16:16: the holy place
• Lev 16:18: the altar
• Lev 16:33: the holy sanctuary, the tabernacle, the altar
• Num 35:33: the land itself (the word “cleansed” here translates “kaphar”)
• Eze 43:20: the horns of the altar (the word “purge” here translates “kaphar”)
• Eze 43:26: the altar (as for v 20).

As applied to people, “kaphar” may imply recognition in the moral sense, and involve the gaining of forgiveness. There are many examples of this in Lev 4; 5. However, when applied to people it may be merely a cleansing without any hint of personal guilt or need for forgiveness. This is most strikingly illustrated in the requirement of atonement for the uncleanness of childbirth:

“If a woman have… born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; when the days of her purifying are fulfilled, she shall bring… a sin offering: and the priest shall make an atonement (kaphar) for her, and she shall be clean” (Lev 12:2,6,8). The most notable and significant case of this very type of atonement is Mary, who was “highly favored” and “blessed among women”: “And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem… to offer a sacrifice” (Luk 2:22-24). Notice in Lev 12 that this is called a sin offering for atonement, although clearly there was no guilt or moral alienation involved here.

“Kaphar” is almost always translated ‘atonement’, but other renderings (besides those already mentioned) are:

1. Deu 21:8: “Be merciful (‘kaphar’), O LORD, unto Thy people… And the blood shall be forgiven (‘kaphar’) them.”
2. Deu 32:43: “(God) will be merciful (‘kaphar’) unto His land,”
3. Psa 65:3: “…our transgressions. Thou shalt purge (‘kaphar’) them away.”
4. Psa 78:38: “He… forgave (‘kaphar’) their iniquity.”
5. Pro 16:6: “By mercy and truth iniquity is purged (‘kaphar’).”
6. Eze 16:63: “…when I (God) am pacified toward (‘kaphar’) thee.”
7. Eze 45:17: “…to make reconciliation (‘kaphar’) for the house of Israel.”
8. Dan 9:24: “…to make reconciliation (‘kaphar’) for iniquity.”

The right connotation

It has been shown that the English word ‘atonement’ is not a very good representation of the Hebrew “kaphar”, and carries connotations not in the original. Today ‘atone’ and ‘atonement’ carry, to most people, the ideas of (1) moral culpability, and (2) expiation and a required compensation of some sort.

Guilt, and payment for that guilt, are secondary and acquired meanings, even for the English word. They are not part of the original English meaning, which was simply ‘atonement’ — a bringing into unity. And these ideas of guilt of sin, and payment for sin, are certainly not inherent in the Hebrew word “kaphar”, which, as seen, can apply to the cleansing of inanimate objects, or of uncleannesses of people which do not involve any personal guilt.

It would probably be simpler, less misleading, and more understandable, if we used ‘covering’ or ‘cleansing’ wherever ‘atonement’ occurs, being guided by the context as to whether it involved a moral reconciliation or whether it was simply a physical (or legal and ceremonial) cleansing.

The Scriptural concepts of covering and cleansing turn our minds profitably in the direction of what must occur within us, through and as a result of the required atonement. The orthodox ideas attached to ‘atonement’ — someone else being required to pay for our guilt, to suffer instead of us for our sins — tends to dull our consciences and turn our minds away from our own real need for cleansing and purifying.

It is the blood of Christ, the perfect sacrifice, that first ‘covers’, then ‘cleanses’ us — not ritually, but practically and gloriously. He did not die to ‘atone’ for our sins in the orthodox sense. He lived and died to become a cleansing medium by which our sins are first mercifully covered, and then, progressively and at last completely and perfectly, cleansed from us: ‘washed away’.

Atonement, then, as it occurs in the AV, does not mean an external payment or compensation, that is, something done outside of ourselves, something substitutionary. This is a corrupted orthodox meaning. Instead, it means an internal covering, cleansing, purifying, and putting right — something done not so much for us as in us.

Bible sacrifice

The sacrifices of the Bible were not to pay for sins; nor were they substitutes to suffer and die in the place of the sinner, as orthodoxy teaches. The sacrifices of the Bible were a humble recognition that the only condition acceptable to God is purity and perfection; that sin is uncleanness; and that sinful man can be reconciled to God only by being covered by, and washed in the blood of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The sacrifices had to be “without blemish”, a “perfect” life poured out unto death. There was to be a recognition that the flesh must he cut off and the body of sin destroyed, the ultimate submission and subjection of humanity to God.

The required perfection of (he sacrifices is the key to their meaning; the perfection of Christ, which can cover weak sinful man. if man will humbly and obediently accept the covering in the way appointed and live in the way required to maintain possession of this covering.

The sacrifices were a manifestation of faith in the deliverance from sin that God had promised and would provide: the Seed of the woman to crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15).

[For an in-depth study of this foundation verse in all the Bible, see “The Serpent and the Woman’s Seed”: Genesis 3:15 in all the Bible”.]

New Testament atonement

The AV has introduced ‘atonement’ only once into the New Testament (Rom 5:11), and there the RV has correctly changed it to “reconciliation”, consistent with the AV rendering of the same noun (katallage) and its related verb (katallasso) everywhere else.

In the New Testament we read much of reconciliation, redemption, sanctification, purification, cleansing, and so forth. All of these, in harmony with “kaphar”, turn our minds to the state and condition of the recipient rather than to something done externally to him and as a substitute for him, as the orthodox idea of atonement has it. [Also see Lesson, Redemption]

[Aside: Scriptural atonement (“kaphar”) is, truly, always related in some way to the physical condition arising from the general constitution of sin that has come upon the world through Adam. That is the unifying idea behind all its uses.]

Of Christ’s own need of, and participation in, the cleansing benefits of his sacrificial death, we therefore read:

“It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should he purified with these (animal sacrifices): but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb 9:23);

“By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12) — not “for us” as in the AV, but “for himself” in the first instance.

Concerning that blood of Christ, as it relates to us, we read:

1. “Ye are washed… ye are sanctified” (1Co 6:11);
2. “We have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins” (Eph 1:7: also Col 1:14);
3. “If the blood of bulls and of goats… sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: how much more shall the blood of Christ… purge your conscience…?” (Heb 9:13,14):
4. “…that he (Jesus) might sanctify the people with his own blood” (Heb 13:12);
5. “Ye were… redeemed… with (the precious blood of Christ)” (1Pe 1:18.19);
6. “The blood of Jesus Christ… cleanseth us” (1Jo 1:7);
7. “Unto him that loved us. and washed us from our sins in his own blood…” (Rev 1:5);
8. “Thou… hast redeemed us to God by thy blood” (Rev 5:9).

Cleansing, purifying, sanctifying (making holy), and redeeming from (rescuing from the bondage to) Sin — this is the picture throughout. It is a process which must, in one sense, be done for us and to us, for we can ‘of our own selves do nothing’, and “it is God who worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure”. But the process also demands our complete devotion and desire, and our utmost effort, for the immediately preceding verse commands: “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling” (Phi 2:12,13).

It is not in contradiction, but in beautiful harmony, that the washing is attributed, not only to the blood, but also to the Word:

“… that the might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:26).

There must be a constant washing, a total immersion in this Divine water of life, if the great work of ‘at-one-ment’ — making all things one in Christ — is to have any meaning for us.

Christ cleansed himself first, in the God-appointed way: by neutralizing, overcoming, and eventually destroying — in his flesh — the impulses of sin. His sacrifice cleanses and redeems us only as we become part of him. These are the emphatic and consistent teachings of the pioneers, and together they are the heart of the sacrifice of Christ. These are the central issues that distinguish the Truth from the apostasy on this subject.

The issue

Did Christ offer as one of those needing the sacrifice? If so, then he was — as we teach — truly a representative. Or did he offer merely on behalf of others, not needing the sacrifice himself? If so, then he was — as the apostasy teaches — no more than a substitute. John Thomas and Robert Roberts are emphatic that the former is the truth, and the very heart of the truth, concerning his sacrifice.

All animal sacrifices typified what needed to be done. Christ was not just another type. He actually did in himself and for himself what needed to be done: overcoming and destroying the diabolos: offering the bloodshed sacrifice that God’s wisdom had appointed for the cleansing of sin’s flesh; and breaking out of the law of sin and death that held all mankind including himself, in bondage.

God, through Christ, now freely offers this victory to all who completely deny themselves, and become a part of him, and enter into him. Where they fall short of his perfect victory, his blood continually cleanses them through repentance and prayer and God’s mercy, if they are giving their utmost in loving service to God.

Where should we stand on this vital issue? The following are the word-for-word Scriptural teachings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts, in question form, with references. Those who believe the Truth taught by Christadelphians from the beginning should have no difficulty answering each question with a ‘Yes’.

[In the absence of other references, the numbers refer to year and page numbers of The Christadelphian, for articles authored by Brother Robert Roberts.]

Historical review

1. Was it necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for the purging of his own nature? (1873:468).
2. Was Christ’s sacrifice operative on himself first of all? (RR, LM 91).
3. Did Christ offer for himself first, and only “for us” as we may become part of him? (RR, LM 174).
4. Was Christ’s flesh purified by the sprinkling of its own blood? (Catechesis, third edition, p 13).
5. Did Christ require purging from the law of sin and death by his own sacrifice? (1873:468).
6. Was the altar-body on the tree sanctified by its shed blood? (JT, Eur 2:224).
7. If one denies the need for Christ to be purified by his own sacrifice, does this displace him from his position, destroy the reason for his being partaker of our common nature, and substitute the confusion of the sectarian atonement? (1877:376).
8. Is it true that God could not have condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus if there were no sin there? (JT, Elp 128).
9. Is the diabolos that Jesus destroyed the “exceeding great sinner Sin” in the sense of the law of sin and death within all the posterity of Adam without exception? (Eur 1:249).
10. Was the flesh of Christ the “filthy garments” with which the Spirit-Word was clothed — the “iniquity of us all” that was laid on him? (Eur 1:108).
11. Does “sin” in Paul’s argument stand for human nature with its affections and desires? Is to he “made sin” for others to become flesh and blood? (Eur 1:247).
12. Were our iniquities “laid on him” by his being made of our nature? (1873:400).
13. Was it necessary that Christ should first of all be purified with better sacrifices than the Mosaic? (LM 92).
14. Was the flesh of Christ cleansed by the blood of that flesh when poured out unto death on the tree? (Eur 2:224).
15. Does an evil principle pervade every part of human flesh, so that the animal nature is styled in Scripture “sinful flesh”, that is, “flesh full of sin”? (JT, Elp 127).
16. Was Christ’s own shed blood required for his exaltation to the Divine nature? (1897:63).
17. Did Christ have to offer for himself? (1873:405).
18. Is sin in the flesh hereditary? and is it entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam’s violation of the Eden law? (JT, Elp 128).
19. Was Christ’s flesh “flesh of sin” in which “dwells no good thing”? (Eur 1:106).
20. When God made Jesus “to be sin” (2Co 5:21), does this mean He made him to be flesh? (Elp 134).
21. Did Christ offer for himself, first by reason of his participation in Adamic mortality? (1873:555).
22. Did the Spirit clothe Himself with weakness and corruption — in other words, “Sin’s flesh’s identity” — that he might destroy the diabolos? (Eur 1:246).
23. Is it true that the Devil was not destroyed OUT OF Christ: but that it was destroyed IN him? Is it true that we have to get into Christ to get the benefit of his work? Is it true that in him we obtain the deliverance accomplished in him? (1875:375).
24. Is diabolos a very fit and proper word to designate the law of sin and death, or sin’s flesh? (Eur 1:249).
25. Did Christ “through the shedding of his blood enter into the spiritual state”? (1893:139).
26. Is it true that if Christ had not first obtained eternal redemption (Heb 9:12), there would have been no hope for us, for we attain salvation only through what he has accomplished in himself, of which we become heirs by union with him? (1875:375).
27. Was Jesus himself as the firstborn necessarily comprised in the sacrificial work he accomplished for his brethren? (1884:469).
28. Is it true that these things (“became sin lot us”, “sin condemned in the flesh”, “our sins borne in his body on the tree”) could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of the physical principle styled “Sin in the flesh”? (JT, 1873:361).
29. Did Christ “offer for himself”? Did he obtain eternal redemption in and for himself, as the middle voice of the verb implies (Heb 9:12)? Was he brought from the dead through the blood of the everlasting covenant’? (1875:139).
30. Was Christ purged by the blood of his own sacrifice? (LM 171).
31. Is it true that condemnation has passed upon all men through Adam and that it cannot be annulled without sacrifice”? (1893: Sept cover).
32. Was Jesus, though personally sinless, by constitution condemned? and did he therefore have to offer for himself and for his brethren? (1873:405).

[This article is extracted in large part from BJ Dowling, “The Death of Christ as the Devil’s Destruction”, Xd 26:17-20.]

To understand the sacrifice of Christ we must start with the actual work Christ did and which God from the very beginning determined that he should do. This is the reality. From it we may work back to develop our understanding of the types and shadows that point to it.

Because they come first in time, the natural tendency is to work forward from the shadows and types (or what we think the shadows and types mean), and then to define the reality in terms of the types. Thus one might argue that Christ ‘needed a sacrifice’. But Christ did not need A sacrifice, in the common sense of the term; he needed THE sacrifice. In other words, he needed that God-ordained reality of which ‘sacrifice’ as we know it is merely the shadow and type.

Sacrifices — Mosaic and otherwise — though predating Christ’s work in time, are just foreshadowings of that work, and have no real meaning or purpose apart from it. The picture is further confused and compounded by the concept of ‘sacrifice’ introduced by the apostasy. They make it mean punishment, appeasement, vicarious transfer of penalty, purchase of Divine favor, and such like. We must be very careful not to be influenced subconsciously by the contrived, non-Biblical meanings that now cling closely to the term.

Sacrifice

The actual accomplishment which God required of some one member of the race, and which Christ voluntarily undertook to do for the race, is the meaning at the source of the ritual that we call ‘sacrifice’. As an English word, ‘sacrifice’ has various meanings that may or may not be relevant. Its literal, root meaning is simply ‘holy work’ (from the Latin “sacra” — holy, sacred; and “facio” — to make or do).

Its current, common meaning is ‘the giving up or foregoing of something for the sake of something better or someone else’. Certainly this meaning is involved in Scriptural sacrifice. It is the basic idea of choosing the good, and rejecting the evil. But this is certainly not the whole picture of Scriptural ‘sacrifice’, nor even the central feature of the picture.

There are two aspects in the words that are translated ‘sacrifice’: ‘to slay’ and ‘to offer’. In the majority of cases the words mean ‘a slaughter’ (“zebach” in Hebrew and “thusia” in Greek). This is fundamental; Biblical sacrifice is a putting to death.

The other aspect is quite limited by comparison: it is ‘offering up to God, causing to ascend, bringing near to God’ (“minchah” and “korban” in Hebrew, “prosphero” in Greek). It might be said, then, that Christ’s life was an offering, and his death was a sacrifice. And that would be true. But actually the two — life and death — are an indivisible sacrificial offering. His whole life was a symbolic putting to death; his death was the supreme and climactic offering of a perfect life.

From the beginning, ritual sacrifice was meant to be an obedient act of faith in God’s promise of the Seed of the Woman to “(take) away the sin of the world”. It was faith, prospectively, in Christ and his work. Such belief involved a repudiation of oneself, a confession of one’s total inability to save oneself, and a declaration of allegiance to God and His holiness. It also involved thankfulness to God for His promised provision and deliverance from the sin-condition into which the first man had plunged the race. These aspects are more specifically delineated in the various sacrifices under the Law of Moses.

Sacrifice has to do with sin. Its background and framework is in relation to sin. It arose from the problem created by sin. It takes into consideration the punishment of sin. It recognizes that sin must inevitably bring death. But sacrifice is not the punishment for sin.

It is a conquering of sin, a victory over sin, a deliverance from sin.

Sacrifice is not a symbol of ‘punishment’ or “paying a penalty”, although it does involve the implied confession that “the wages of sin is death” (Rom 6:23). True sacrifice also recognizes that sin as a totality — localized in the ‘sin-nature’ — must be condemned and put to death in order to free a person from its grip. We make a mistake when we say that Christ ‘offered a sacrifice’. We are coming at it from the wrong direction. We should say that Christ did a work that became the basis of, and gave meaning to, the shadow and type that we call ‘sacrifice’.

In the beginning

God created man “very good” — free from sin, free from death. Man disobeyed God, and this brought sin and death upon the race. While Adam was created “very good” (Gen 1:31), Paul very powerfully states that in his own flesh (and Paul was one of the best of men) was “no good thing” (Rom 7:15). And this “no good” condition of his flesh he repeatedly calls “sin”. With Adam’s sin and sentence, sin (as a physical principle) infected the whole race, defiled the whole race, and brought the whole race under “condemnation” of death. (This condemnation was upon the whole race, without exception, and would be upon Christ from the moment of his birth.)

After Adam sinned, God inaugurated a plan to cleanse the race from sin, and redeem it from death. This plan was that, from the race itself, there had to be one man to give himself voluntarily to remove from the race that condemnation of death, and its cause, sin. He must be one of the race, subject to all the disabilities and defilements brought on the race by Adam’s disobedience, and with them equally in need of deliverance from those disabilities and defilements. These were the typical “filthy garments” of the typical high priest Joshua (Zec 3:4). who were typically cleansed and reclothed in the purity of new fresh garments, which symbolized a sin-free immortal nature.

This representative man must overcome and destroy sin and abolish death. He must thus achieve salvation from these two evils for himself, in full harmony with God’s law and justice and holiness. He must do it by a life of perfect obedience voluntarily completed in a blood-shedding death.

Such a life and death publicly condemned sin (in all its aspects), justified God’s law, exalted God’s holiness, and manifested God’s justice. The obedient death that completed that obedient life was to condemn and destroy sin in himself.

God required an actual destroying of sin

God required, not a symbol, not a shadow, but a reality: a real overcoming and conquering of sin, a real condemning and destroying of sin. And that is what Jesus accomplished for himself. His obedient death was just as real and necessary a part of his salvation as was his obedient life. And what he did in his death was no more a mere shadow than what he did in his life.

The blood-shedding death (rather than a ‘natural’ death) was required by God for sin’s public condemnation, and God’s public justification. Christ on the cross was a public repudiation of sin, a public confession that God’s sentence on sin — the whole ‘sin-constitution’ through Adam — was just (Col 2:15′ Rom 3:25,26).

The putting to death of Christ was to show God’s justice. How did it do so, if Christ never sinned? How can it possibly manifest God’s justice to put a perfectly righteous man to a violent death? Why — if sin must be condemned publicly and God justified publicly for His condemnation of sin to death — why, of all people, pick the only man who never sinned to do it to? To answer this question correctly puts us well along the way to understanding the atonement. Christ had no sins. Therefore his death made the issue crystal clear that it was the body of sin, sin’s flesh, the “law of sin… in (the) members, that was being condemned and put to death. And it had to be done in this way before any one of the race — Christ included — could be cleansed from the sin-constitution. This was God’s requirement for cleansing the race from sin, in harmony with His holiness.

Some say his sacrifice was merely a type, a shadow, a symbol. They say God was simply declaring to man: “This is what by justice should happen to you. It shouldn’t happen to this man; he has no connection with it, but I am just doing it to him to illustrate what should be done to you.”

It is difficult to see either logic or justice in this. How is sin “condemned”, or how is God’s justice “manifested”, by arbitrarily putting to death the one person who had never sinned, just as a sample of what should happen to sinners? This is a strange way of portraying God’s justice: to choose, as the example of what should be done to sinners, the one man who had nothing to do with sin!

If we do not see Christ being “made… sin” (2Co 5:21) as God’s plan for cleansing the whole race from sin’s flesh, then we shall never make any real sense out of Christ’s death, or see how it simultaneously destroyed sin and manifested God’s justice.

Human flesh is Scripturally ‘sin’

There is in all human flesh — as a result of the sin and sentence of Adam — an evil defiling principle that the Bible calls “sin in the flesh”, “the law of sin… in (the) members”, “sin that dwelleth in me”, “sin… working death in me”, and so forth. It is Paul in Rom 7 who goes into this most fully; but what the Spirit says throughout the Scriptures about the flesh and the natural mind and the heart of man repeatedly testifies to this sin-defiled condition of all human flesh: “O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death (this body of death, mg)?” (Rom 7:24).

As pointed out in numerous quotations from the pioneers, the sin-caused and sin-causing principle that is in human flesh is called ‘sin’ by the Scriptures. Certainly this is, as some have said, metonymy. (‘Metonymy’ is simply the title for a figure of speech by which the name of something is extended to its related aspects.)

Sin most literally is an act of disobedience against God’s law. By metonymy, and very reasonably, God extends the name ‘sin’ to that principle of evil in all human flesh that came by sin and causes sin. But let us not suppose that this secondary aspect of sin is not real because it is metonymical. God Himself inspired men to use the term ‘sin’ to include the evil, sinful principle in all human flesh. Let us not belittle His choice of words, but rather let us ask: Why did He do so? And what bearing does the fact have on salvation? We find that the fact that He did so is a very important step in the developing picture. Paul, continuing his exposition from Rom 7, says: “to be carnally (fleshly) minded is death… the carnal (fleshly) mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom 8:6-8).

This identifies the flesh as ‘sin’, and justifies the name the Bible gives it. What better definition of sin is there than “enmity against God… not subject to… God, neither… can be…”? That is the flesh: all mortal flesh — it is flesh that belongs to ‘King Sin’! That is why it had to be crucified. That is why the crucifixion of Christ was a declaration of God’s justice and holiness and righteousness. That is why Christ, who successfully fought sin’s flesh all his life, voluntarily crucified it — in life and in death wholly, completely.

Our oneness with Christ: a common sin-nature

This evil principle in the flesh — Biblically called ‘sin’ — is the essential unifying factor between Christ and us; sharing the same human nature makes it possible for our sins to be done away in his blood-shedding. It is our common, mutual problem. He solved it and escaped it, cleansing himself from its defilement in God’s appointed way. And he now offers, by God’s merciful arrangement, to reach down and lift us out — if we give total devotion to him. That was the very purpose of his creation and work.

The work Christ did — the essential, race-redeeming work that was foreshadowed from the beginning — was the overcoming and destroying of sin in himself, and necessarily, for himself. As a moral and physical reality, Christ could conquer and destroy sin only in himself. That was the arena of his total victory over sin, by which he laid the eternal foundations for his further work: the ultimate salvation of those individuals who by faith enter into him and lay hold of the victory he has won.

Christ — in the appointed way, and with God-provided help and strengthening — had to cleanse himself from sin, and destroy sin in himself. That is the root and basis and only real meaning of what we call ‘sacrifice’. It was his only way to his own personal salvation. He was made “perfect through sufferings” (Heb 2:10), and this was the “suffering” required. He was redeemed “by his own blood” (Heb 9:12; 13:20), and this was the manner in which that blood must be shed.

His great work was not a mere shadow, not a mere symbol illustrating what should be done to someone else. It was an actual, essential accomplishment: the self-cleansing from, and destruction of, sin. He did not just typify this: he did it. He did not ‘pay the penalty’ for someone else. He did the actual job of destroying sin that God’s holiness required to be done for the race to be saved. He did it in and for himself so that it might then be for us too, who become a part of him. He, as the representative man, the new nucleus of the race (the “last Adam”), must first be transformed and glorified, so that others may also be transformed and glorified in him.

Did Christ need a sacrifice?

But did Christ ‘need a sacrifice’? Perhaps we can see it more clearly this way: Christ, as one of the race, and as the embodiment of the race, needed what the whole race needed — the reality that is simply foreshadowed by the ritual of sacrifice. He did not need a ‘sacrifice’ as such, in the shadowy, typical sense of the term, and neither do we. We need, as he with us needed, the reality that God’s holiness and wisdom demanded from some man for the salvation of any of the race.

Starting within the condemned, defiled race, he — with faith and by God’s strengthening — was delivered out of it. That work was his sacrifice.

Ritual can never save anyone. It is true that ritual may be required by God (as baptism in this dispensation, and circumcision and sacrifice in the Mosaic) as an act of humility and obedience to connect us with the reality, and to bring us its benefits. And when God requires a ritual then salvation is impossible without that ritual. But a ritual must have a fulfilling reality: a shadow must have a fulfilling substance. Christ’s actual accomplishment — the destruction of sin — is the reality and substance of which baptism and breaking of bread, sacrifice and circumcision, are the representative rituals.

It was not for himself only that he redeemed himself. He was specifically created to redeem the race (of which he was only a part), and he joyfully accepted the great work for which he was born, the Lamb of God to take away the sin of the world (Joh 1:29). Someone had to win his way out of the sin-constitution, in the righteous way God appointed, with whom God could deal as the race. There was no one already in the race — nor naturally ever would or could be — that could do it. So God in love especially created one within the race, and specially strengthened him so that he could do what had to be done.

Two extremes

In the past Christadelphians have tended to explain the atonement either too mechanically or too superficially. It has been demonstrated that the sacrifice of Christ was not a mere mechanical device: there was grim reality behind his work, for himself first and then in prospect for us. With us, as with Christ, nothing is actually accomplished by the magic wand of ritual; there must be a real doing, a real labor, a real victory and overcoming of “the motions of sins… in our members”.

The sacrifice of Christ is not just, superficially, ‘a way to get your sins forgiven’, and nothing else. There is more, so much more. Sin as a totality is being addressed and at last conquered in Christ, and in us. If we cannot see this picture, then we just have two disjointed, unconnected things: (1) our sins, and (2) Christ’s sacrifice. And we have to invent a shadowy link between the two in the name of ‘ritual’, which just boils down to substitution. In that case, Christ was not actually treating sin as it ought to be treated, and had to be treated to solve the problem. If he had no sin in his flesh to overcome and destroy, then he was not destroying sin, but just once more typifying how it ought to be destroyed.

The main issue

The fact that Christ offered for himself first, and was cleansed and redeemed from the sin-constitution by his own blood, is crucial to a full understanding and appreciation of the atonement. It is the essential link that binds him to us and makes his death on the cross a declaration of God’s holiness and justice (as it is said to be). This full and correct view makes his personal perfecting and cleansing efficacious for us as a true representative (one in need of the same thing), and not as a mere ritual substitute (just illustrating something not applicable to himself).

Once we confess that Christ offered for himself (Heb 2:10-15; 4:14–5:9; 7:27: 9:7; 12:21-28; 13:20), then the picture is clear. Until we make this vital link secure we leave his sacrifice an isolated enigma, a shadow, unrelated to reality and accomplishment: a symbol and nothing more, a yawning chasm between his work and our need. As John Thomas put it:

“Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there… The purpose of God… was to condemn sin in the flesh: a thing that could not have been accomplished, if there were no sin there”.

Separating Christ from his brethren

It is quite possible, either in being too mechanical and ritualistic, or in being too simplistic, to separate Christ from his brethren. This is a serious mistake. Any theory that has two different salvations — one for Christ and another for his brethren — must be wrong. We all, the whole race, need the same thing. And what we need is not just a ritual that points, but an accomplishment that finishes; a real, actual victory over the sin nature, that we can (in God’s mercy) enter into and share.

God deals with the race as a race, but on an individual basis. That sounds like a contradiction, but it is not. God is saving the race, as the race, in and through Christ. But He is not saving the whole race, just those members of the race who individually take advantage of His provision of salvation for the race.

By the grace of God, Christ is the firstfruits of them that sleep. Having “obtained eternal redemption” for himself, he extended that salvation, by the mercy of God, to all who make themselves part of him, who enter into Christ through belief and baptism.

“Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption” (1Co 1:30).

“God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself… For He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:19,21).

“Through Ins own blood, (he) entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb 9:12, RV).

It is a fundamental point of truth that death came upon all men through Adam (Rom 5:12,15), and that condemnation came upon the whole race through his offence (vv 16-19). Paul summarizes this principle when he writes: “in Adam all die” (1Co 15:22).

Here was — and is — the breach between God and the human race. Christ’s mission was to heal that breach and reconcile the race to God. If we carefully examine all Paul’s teachings on this subject we shall find that all the advantages of Christ’s sacrifice for us depend upon the fact that he was one of us “in all points”, and hence under the same condemnation that Adam brought upon the race.

Two aspects

Christ was one of the race which, as a race, was separated from God by the defilement caused by Adam’s sin. (There is of course no guilt attached to the simple fact of separation.) It was only by being a member of our defiled and condemned race that he could fulfill the requirements for the redemption of that race. And. furthermore, the redemption of the race involved — necessitated, for that matter — his own redemption also.

It was also true that Jesus from his birth — even from his conception — was a holy thing (Luk 1:35) and a special creation. He was the Son of God in a sense that could be true of no other man. He had a unique relationship that, in part, strengthened him (Psa 80:17) and allowed him the possibility of living a sinless life — and this was necessary also for the reconciliation of man to God (2Co 5:19-21).

It is the failure properly to balance these two necessary aspects of Christ’s identity that has caused considerable misunderstanding, discord and even division among Christadelphians. From the earliest days of our history undue emphasis on one or the other of these two aspects (and a corresponding neglect of the counterpart) has created problems. Both must be kept in view at all times: the condemnation that rested upon Christ, and the uniqueness of his relationship with the Father. Or, put another way, that which made him like all other men, and that which made him different from every other man. One point of view should never be allowed to overshadow or displace the other. The two aspects are equally important.

Christ partook of our condemnation

Christ was a man (1Ti 2:5: Ads 2:22. etc) who came in the flesh (1Jo 4:2) being born of a woman, under the law (Gal 4:4). It would logically follow, even in the absence of any other testimony, that, in having the same physical constitution as ourselves, he was thereby subject to the same racial condemnation as the rest of mankind: in other words, that he had the same “law of sin” in his members (Rom 7:23).

But there is plenty of other testimony to this effect.

1. Heb 2:14,15: “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.” There are two points here. First, the fact: that Chris was made in all points like his brethren; note the repeated expressions “also”, “himself”, “likewise”, “the same”. Second, the reason: so that he might destroy the “devil”.

It was necessary for him to partake of the same flesh and blood in order that he might destroy the devil by death. We know that the devil is sin in the flesh. Jesus had to have sinful flesh in order to overcome sinful flesh and by dying to destroy sinful flesh. This is the very strength of the whole argument.

2. Heb 7:27: “Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” The simple and obvious meaning of this verse is that Christ offered once for his own sins and for the people’s. This conclusion is sometimes evaded by objecting to the expression “his own sins”, inasmuch as Christ was free from personal transgression. But by an examination of the ordinance referred to we find that the high priest offered “because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions” (Lev 16:16, RV).

So “sins” in Heb 7:27 includes uncleanness as well as actual transgression; it includes the whole “sin constitution”. It is only by considering these two aspects of sin as inseparable parts of one whole that we can understand how Christ, by destroying the body of sin on the cross, could cover our transgressions.

Our sins are not something separate from our nature, they are a development of it. There are not “two kinds of sin”, one moral and real, and the other only shadowy and metonymical. Rather, there are two aspects of sin: the “root” in our flesh and the “branch” in our actions. And the two aspects are intimately and absolutely connected to one another. In us sin is too strong for us and becomes manifest in our actions. In Christ sin was controlled and overcome, and never became manifest in action. But in both cases it is the same battle with the same adversary.

3. Heb 9:12: “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place”. The holy place signified the immortal state beyond the “veil” of the flesh. Christ entered it “by” (RV, through) his own purifying, sacrificial blood. The text continues: “…having obtained eternal redemption”. The “for us” in italics in the AV is incorrect, and is omitted in the RV, RSV, NEB, NIV, and NASB. The verb “obtained” is in the middle voice, indicating reflexive action; that is, it means “having obtained for himself”.

This is what one would naturally take from the passage as it stands in English. The translators of the AV appear to have added the “for us” in direct violation of the grammatical meaning, just to support their false theory of’ ‘substitution’. Any theory that attempts to separate Christ from the effects of his own sacrifice is just a variation of the old ‘vicarious substitution’ doctrine, and a denial of the representative nature of his sacrifice.

4. Heb 4:15: “(He) was in all points tempted like as we are.” We are tempted by the law in our members, which wars against the law of our mind (Rom 7:23). We are tempted when we are drawn away of our own lusts and enticed (Jam 1:14). Then this must be how Christ was tempted, and this must be what he perfectly resisted and overcame, and this must be what he destroyed by death.

5. Rom 8:3: “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” Christ had to be in the very likeness of sinful flesh in order to condemn sin in the flesh. Sin had to he condemned in the very ‘arena’ where it had reigned supreme. The word “likeness” does not mean apparent similarity; it means absolute identity.

6. John 3:14-16: “…as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up…” According to Jesus’ own testimony, he was the antitype of the brazen serpent that Moses erected in the wilderness (Num 21:9). What did this symbolize? How could it possibly typify Jesus Christ?

That which caused death was lifted up as a type of sin’s body being crucified, thus forming the basis of reconciliation for all that look toward it. Paul refers to this when he says: “Our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin” (Rom 6:6). Christ overcame and crucified our “Master”, “Sin-in-the-flesh”, and delivered us from his service. The “serpent” dwelt in his “body of sin”, and required first to be restrained and finally to be crushed (Gen 3:15). Christ raised up the body of sin on the cross just as Moses raised up the brazen serpent, exhibiting and condemning that which brought death; those who look upon him in faith are delivered.

7. Heb 9:22,23: “Almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these (that is, animal sacrifices); but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” We know that the Mosaic Law points forward to Christ. Under the Law the high priest was to purify with blood, among other things, the mercy seat and the altar (Lev 16:15-19). What is the antitypical fulfillment of the cleansing of the mercy seat and the altar by blood? What is signified by this? Who is it that was typified by the mercy seat and the altar?

“God has set (Christ) forth to be a Mercy-seat” (Rom 3:25, Diaglott);

“We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle” (Heb 13:10).

Christ is the mercy seat and the altar, cleansed by his own blood from the uncleanness of sinful flesh.

That which was accomplished provisionally in the temple offering (Luk 2:22-27) and in his baptism (Mat 3:13-16) was accomplished absolutely in his death and resurrection.

8. Gal 3:13: “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written. Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” He had to come under the curse of the Mosaic Law, reasons Paul, in order to redeem those under that curse. This is parallel with the argument that Christ had to be flesh and blood in order to destroy the Adamic curse. He had to come under it in order to destroy it in himself, and open a way out of it for himself, and for all those who unite themselves with him in the appointed way.

He came under the Adamic curse by birth, as we all do. The Mosaic curse he came under, as Paul says, by the manner of his death. He came under both without the loss of his personal righteousness, it is true; but both were real nevertheless.

9. 2Co 5:21: “He hath made him… sin for us”. In what way was he “made… sin”, other than as Paul explains, by partaking of the same flesh and blood as the children, in whom the law of sin reigned?

10. 1Pe 2:24: “Who In his own self (we our sins in his own body on the tree.” In what way did he hear our sins “in his own body”? As Paul explains, it was by partaking of sinful flesh, bearing “in his body” the root and tendencies of sin which he conquered and subdued.

“In his own body” establishes the connection between him and us. He was one of the defiled race. Therefore he could be accepted by God as representing the race.

If God had exacted a penalty from someone upon whom it did not rightly fall this would have been neither justice nor love. Instead it would have been a paganized ‘substitutionary’ ‘sacrifice’. But when God especially provided and strengthened one of the race, and enabled him to fulfill the conditions which all (including himself) should fulfill, and then was and is willing to receive all the rest on the basis of an identification with this one perfect example and sacrifice — there indeed is both love and justice demonstrated with beautiful Divine wisdom and power!

11. Heb 13:20: “God… brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus… through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” Here is another key statement of great importance. Jesus was brought from the dead (surely this must include his glorification also?) by his own blood. His purification, redemption, and final exaltation to immortality were contingent on his being really associated with his blood.

Testimony of the ‘pioneers’

To this essential truth the ‘pioneer’ brethren agreed:

• “Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there… the purpose of God… was to condemn sin in the flesh; a thing that could not have been accomplished, if there were no sin there” (JT, Elp 128).
• “Sin… had to he condemned in the nature that had transgressed… ‘He (Jesus)… took part of the same; that through death he might destroy… the diabolos’, or elements of corruption in our nature, inciting it to transgression, and therefore called ‘Sin working death in us’ ” (JT, Eur 1:106,107).
• “He (Jesus) was Sin’s Flesh crucified, slain, and buried; in which by the slaying sin had been condemned, and by the burial, put out of sight” (JT, Eur 2:124).
• “If the principle of corruption had not pervaded the flesh of Jesus… (sin could not) have been condemned there: nor could he have ‘borne our sins in his own body…’ ” (JT, Eur 1:203).
• ” ‘Iniquities laid on him.’ This is a figurative description of what was literally done in God sending forth His Son, made of a woman (Adamic), made under the law (Mosaic), to die under the combined curse… This was laid on Jesus in his being made of our nature” (RR, Xd 1873:400).
• “What is cancelled at baptism (and it is only cancelled potentially — for there is an “if” all the way through) is the condemnation resting upon us as individual sinners, and the racial condemnation which we physically inherit. I have never diverged from this view…” (Robert Roberts, from the Introduction to Resurrectional Responsibility Debate).
• “He offered first for himself… He obtained eternal redemption in and for himself, as the… verb… implies… He was brought again from the dead ‘through the blood of the everlasting covenant’ ” (RR, Xd 1875:139).
• “Christ… (was) purged by the antitypical blood of his own sacrifice… He must therefore, have been the subject of a personal cleansing in the process by which he opened the way of sanctification for his people” (RR, LM 170,171).

It may be true that an occasional brief citation, out of context, may appear to teach otherwise than the above (for example, several brief answers by Robert Roberts during the heat of debate). But the above are only a few quotations from a pervasive, altogether consistent whole of exposition in the works of John Thomas and Robert Roberts and others, to the effect that Jesus shared with us every aspect of Adamic condemnation.

---

We have established that Christ was under the same condemnation as all the rest of mankind, and that his sacrifice was first for his own cleansing and redemption from that condemnation. This is half of the full picture; now we must examine the counterpart (just as necessary to understand), that Christ was a holy and special person set apart from all other men by his divine parentage.

Christ had a unique relationship with the Father

Heb 1:3: Christ was “the brightness of (God’s) glory, and the express image of (God’s) person.” He was the perfect man; the perfect image of God (in a moral and spiritual sense); the flawless, unblemished manifestation of the eternal Father. He was the perfect Son because he was the perfect likeness of a perfect Father. Do we fully appreciate who and what this man really was? Have we concentrated on the fact (undeniable though it he) that he was not the pre-existent, eternal second person of the Trinity to such an extent that we have missed the honor and glory due to him as the Son of God?

John 14:9: “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.” The Father was revealed, or unveiled, in Christ (John 17:6) in an absolutely unique way. He was a man, truly: but not ‘a mere man’, not ‘man only’. As to his nature (and the condemnation he bore), he was certainly man in the fullest sense; as to his status, and his relationship with his Father, he was the manifestation of God and “the Lord from heaven”. We must never forget this.

John 1:14: “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth”. Christ was “Emmanuel”, “God with us” (Mat 1:23; Isa 7:14), “God… manifest in the flesh” (1Ti 3:16). In the face of Jesus men could see the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (2Co 4:4-6). And all of this was true of Christ even before he was made immortal. It was true while he still bore the curse of a condemned nature.

Col 1:15,16,18: Christ is the “image of the invisible God” (cp Heb 1:3), by whom (Greek: in whom) all things were created (this is undoubtedly the new or spiritual creation: cf Col 2:12; 3:1,9,10; 2Co 4:6; 5:17; Gal 6:15, etc), “that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

John 13:13,14: “Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am”. It was not immodest of Jesus to say such a thing, even in the days of his flesh. While he never presumed upon his Sonship and special status (this is the point of Phi 2:5-8), there is no doubt that he asserted its reality. Even before he was crucified he was “the Lord of glory” (1Co 2:7,8), the “Lord… of the sabbath” (Mar 2:28. etc), and the Lord over all illnesses and disease (Mar 1:39, etc), over the wind and the waves (Mar 4:41), and even — to a limited extent? — over death (Joh 11:25).

1Jo 1:1,2: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested…)”. The apostle echoes the introductory words of his Gospel. Even in the days of his flesh Jesus possessed recognizable divine qualities: he was “the Word of life”, who manifested “the eternal life, which was with the Father”. “Never man spake like this man” (Joh 7:46).

Out of the numerous possible quotations from earlier Christadelphian writers that attest to the necessarily unique status of Christ, one will be sufficient:

“The two relationships are here presented in a manner to show how completely Jesus was qualified to meet the requirements of the fallen race. A ‘son of man’ merely had never been found, during four thousand years, who could accomplish the work; and yet the redeemer must be son of man in order to practically and representatively redeem fallen human nature by overcoming its sin-produced proclivities. But a son of man merely was not equal to the task; and had such an one done so there would not thereby have been a manifestation of God’s love and the glory due to Him as the Saviour. Therefore Jesus must be ‘the only begotten of the Father, full of ‘grace and truth’ (John 1:14) as well as the ‘Son of man’ according to the flesh in order that the work of redemption might be possible” (Thomas Williams, The World’s Redemption 428,429).

Truths of salvation

We must have both these truths concerning Jesus as ‘foundation stones’ upon which to erect the true gospel of salvation in Christ. It was imperative that Christ be of our nature in every sense of the word so as to identify with us, and allow us to identify with him. Otherwise any ‘victory’ he won could have had no practical connection with and effect upon us. But it was equally imperative that he be specially created and specially strengthened by his Father to win that special victory. Otherwise there would be no triumph or glory to God. We do him no service when we attempt to diminish either of these concepts.

We are not playing with words; this is the reality of salvation. As a race, we are ‘sin’. Everything we do naturally is sin. Sin is the very fiber of our being. We are conceived in sin and shapen in iniquity (Psa 51:5). This was true of Christ, and most assuredly of us as well. It is from this ‘constitution of sin’ that we need redemption, cleansing, and deliverance. Let us realize this fully; sin is far deeper and more pervasive than we may he willing to admit. A full realization of what we are is the key to the achievement of what we may become. Facing the facts is always the essential beginning to any solution. Let us face this reality concerning Christ and ourselves.

By total devotion to God, and with absolute faith in God (without which it would have been impossible), Christ lifted himself out of the universal sin-constitution. He cleansed himself from it in the sacrificial way appointed by God from the beginning. Now he who was “made… sin” (2Co 5:19-21) is no longer “sin”, or sin-tainted (Heb 7:26), in any respect. He is free from sin, without sin; sin has NO MORE dominion over him (cp Rom 6:7-14).

And he now offers, by God’s merciful arrangement, to reach down and lift us out — if we have total faith in him, and give total devotion to him. This was the very purpose of his creation and existence and glorious work.

Paul said: “in me, (that is, In my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom 7:18). And Jesus could say exactly the same: “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God” (Luk 18:19). That is why he crucified the flesh, and tells us we must do the same, to the best of our abilities. And the fact that Jesus could say this along with Paul is what MAKES HIM ONE WITH US IN OUR PROBLEM. It is what makes his putting the flesh to death a manifestation of God’s justice (Rom 3:25). in which HE himself totally concurred.

In that death Jesus was saying exactly what Paul said publicly, humbly, and to the glory of God: “In my flesh dwelleth no good thing. This is what sin’s flesh deserves. I have never yielded to it for a moment. I have always crucified it within me. And now, in obedience to the Father, and in full agreement with Him, I am pulling it to death in me once for all. I am destroying the diabolos. That is the essence and climax of my work of perfecting myself so that I may save you.”

Redemption of himself

Christ — in the God-appointed way, and with the indispensable God-provided help and guidance — had to cleanse himself from sin and destroy sin in himself. This he did, not in one act, but by a total, inseparable life-and-death work. That is the basis and meaning of what we may too glibly call ‘sacrifice’. It was his only way to his own personal salvation. He was made perfect by “suffering” (Heb 2:10), and thus was the “suffering” required. He was redeemed “by his own blood” (Heb 9:12).

His great work was not merely a symbol, illustrating what should be done to someone else. Neither was it, as some imply, just one final ritual. It was, instead, the ultimate one-time act (Heb 9:12,26). It was an actual, essential accomplishment: the self-cleansing from, and destruction of, sin. He did not just typify this: he did it. He did not ‘pay the penalty’ for anyone else. He did the actual job of destroying sin that was required by God’s holiness, so that the race could he saved. He did it in and for himself. There was no other way or place he could do it.

It is true that Christ was always one with God. There was never any barrier separating them morally, although he was of sin-defiled flesh. But still the defiled nature was a barrier in one sense, for him as it is for us. He could not be one with God in perfection and eternal substance, as he is now, until that barrier was removed: not a moral barrier, but a physical and legal one: not a ‘guilt’, but a misfortune, a disability, an inherited disease of the flesh that must he cleansed in God’s required way.

As to the motive for his sacrifice, Christ did it, not for himself, but in love and obedience to his Father, and for the sake of the glorious “seed” whose eternal redemption and joy was to he his eternal satisfaction (Isa 53:10,11).

The total life-and-death work of sin-destroying that was laid upon him as the representative man of the race was essential for his own cleansing and salvation, as part of the race. As the representative man, the embodiment and nucleus of the new race, the beginning of God’s new creation, he must first himself be transformed from a defiled, condemned condition to a totally purified and perfected condition.

And his culminating blood-shedding death on the cross was an inseparable divinely required part of that work of racial salvation. He was not just ritually “cleansed” by “sacrifice”. It was not just an arbitrary form that God required him to go through as an act of obedience, or to symbolize something. It was an actual personal process of conquering and self-cleansing; a being made perfect by suffering.

Redemption of the race

The work Christ did — the essential, race-redeeming work that was preordained and foreshadowed from the beginning — was the overcoming and destroying and condemning of sin in himself and, necessarily, for himself. It was not in and for himself as a personal, selfish motive, but as a practical, necessary operation to achieve the redemption of the race.

As a moral and physical actuality Christ could conquer and destroy sin only in himself. His flesh was the arena of his total and perfect victory over sin, by which he laid the eternal foundation for his further work. Christ will complete the battle against sin by two final related acts:

(1) He will absorb into his own glorious, sin-free nature all those who accept this deliverance provided by God and who in faith do what God requires them to do to receive it (Rev 21:1-7):

(2) He will destroy all who do not accept him and enter into him (Rev 20:11-15; 21:8). In these two ways the whole of mankind will eventually be saved or destroyed.

The race in Christ

Could Christ have attained to immortality without that blood-shedding death? No, because he must share the common racial salvation, or it has no benefit for us. In God’s wisdom that particular death was essential to lay a sound basis for the salvation of the race. And (let us strive to grasp this wonderful and exalted concept) Christ was, and is, the race! He is all mankind. None can live eternally except within him and as part of him, by becoming “one” with him in the appointed fashion: “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord” (1Co 1:30,31).

The following seven articles attempt to answer certain important questions about the atonement, questions which, to some degree, have troubled many Christadelphians. I do not presume to think that I have fully answered any of the questions, but I only hope that something of what I have written may be useful. The articles contain numerous quotations from John Thomas and Robert Roberts, and other early and esteemed brethren.

I do not intend in this work to be argumentative or divisive, but to redirect attention to the beliefs of our community from the beginning.

There are several expressions Scripturally applied to Christ which seem to cause some brethren unusual difficulty. Perhaps one reason for this is that, in recent years, parts of our community have consistently downplayed and undercut the idea that Christ in fact needed to offer, and did offer, “first for himself”. One of the Scriptural expressions is: “made… sin” (2Co 5:21).

We shall consider this phrase as it occurs in the Revised Version, along with another very relevant passage (Rom 8:3):

“God, sending His own Son in the likeness of flesh of sin and as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3, RV and margin);

“Him who knew no sin He made to he sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2Co 5:21, RV).

From these short passages may he deduced the following doctrines:

1. that “sin” is a constituent of the flesh;
2. that our Lord was flesh, constituted as to his physical nature in our likeness (cp 1Co 15:49);
3. that he was sent to be a sin offering: and
4. that since this sacrifice was of a Holy One who did no sin yet “died unto sin” (Rom 6:10), sin became condemned in human nature, and so could be taken away from it — in the person of the risen Saviour — with full satisfaction to the justice of God.

Correct translations

While ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’ are the same in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, it is erroneous to assume that the same rule applies to the Greek of the New Testament. The Greek for ‘sin’ is “hamartias”. The translators of the Septuagint, faced with the need to render clearly in Greek what might be doubtful if translated literally, used the phrase “peri hamartias” (ie, ‘concerning sin’) to indicate ‘sin offering’. Consequently, where they did not use this phrase, but rendered the Hebrew “hamartias”, they made it clear that in such passages ‘sin’ was meant.

From its use in the Septuagint “peri hamartias” became the current and proper expression in Greek, just as ‘sin offering’ is in English, while “hamartias” (standing alone) continued to be used for ‘sin’. The revisers were therefore justified in changing “for sin” to “as an offering for sin” in Rom 8:3, and wherever else “peri hamartias” is found. Examples of this phrase in the LXX are found in Num 7:16 and Psa 40:6; and in the Greek New Testament in Gal 1:4 and Heb 10:6.8,18.26 — as well as Rom 8:3. (Cp WJ Young, “Sin and Sin-Offering”, Xd 50:531.)

Erroneous translations

Some translators and expositors have not been as consistent as, or lacked the knowledge of the revisers, and have inserted “sin offering” in quite a number of passages where the original does not warrant it. Thus in effect they deny (or seem to deny) that sin was (or needed to be) a constituent of Christ’s nature. The attempt, then, to force upon “hamartias” a meaning which it will not bear should be resisted. Here are two examples:

Heb 9:28: “…and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second lime without sin unto salvation.” The AV is surely correct here, since the Greek is “hamartias”. But notice how modern versions distort and twist this:

NIV, NASB: “not to bear sin” (as though sin were only something that Jesus bore, in an unreal, ceremonial, ritual sense);

RSV: “not to deal with sin” (as though it were impossible that sin could ever have been part of Christ, but was always outside of him — something to he ‘dealt with’);

Even the Diaglott falls into this same trap, and worse, when it translates, “without a sin-offering”, altogether inconsistent with the rule described above.

By contrast, John Carter’s exposition of this passage is clear, unambiguous and correct: “As the high priest came out of the tabernacle to bless a waiting, expectant Israel, so Christ will appear a second time. He will come ‘apart from sin’ himself, for the old nature, sin nature that he bore, has been changed to ‘a body of glory’. The past years were ‘the days of his flesh’ when he ‘was made sin’, though he knew no sin’. He will come for the salvation of those who wait for him, to change their bodies and make them like unto the body of his glory” (CHeb 109). He clearly has no qualms about attaching the word ‘sin’ to Jesus.

To imply (as Heb 9:28 plainly does) that Jesus in his first coming was ‘with sin’ is to say nothing else than that he partook of our sin-prone nature:

1. Gal 4:4: “made of a woman, made under the law.”
2. Heb 2:14: “he also himself likewise partook (RSV) of the same (flesh and blood).”
3. 1Pe 2:24: “(he) bare our sins in his own body on the tree.”
4. 1Jo 4:2: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.”

It was only by partaking of our nature of sin (hat Jesus could “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26).

2Co 5:21: “For He (God) hath made him (Christ) to be sin for us, who (Christ) knew no sin”. Again, the AV is correct, since the original is “hamartias”, not “peri hamartias”. But, also again, the correct rendering is lost sight of by some modern translations, that is:

NIV margin. NEB margin: “a sin offering”:

The Diaglott also renders “a sin-offering” — adding as well a quite erroneous and misleading footnote.

The word “hamartias” occurs twice in the one phrase of 2Co 5:21; it cannot possibly he rendered both times by ‘sin offering’, since who would he so foolish as to say: “Christ was made a sin offering, who himself knew no sin offering”?

The whole force of this passage lies in the antithesis between sin and righteousness: that Jesus was, though sinless as to character, nevertheless constituted of our sinful nature (called Scripturally “sin”). This was in order that, through Jesus, we — who have no righteousness of our own — may be constituted righteous in him. The erroneous rendering, “made a sin offering”, obscures the antithesis and weakens (if not destroys) the passage as a testimony to our Lord’s nature.

The next article will present the historical Christadelphian understanding of 2Co 5:21, Rom 8:3, and related passages.