One of the
greatest blasphemies one has encountered among many Christadelphian authors,
both Amended and Unamended, from the 19th century to the modern
times, is that Jesus not only could have
sinned (a view I hold to and most Latter-day Saints I have discusses this topic
with) but that Jesus had to atone
for his own sin (i.e., the “sin” of possessing human nature). J.J. Andrew, a
leading figure in the Unamended Christadelphian movement, wrote the following
addressing and affirming this calumny against Jesus:
THE JUSTIFICATION OF JESUS
Every Jewish child, by its birth, defiled its
mother. It could not have produced this result if it had not itself been
unclean (Lev. Xii). Rom this defilement, the mother could not be cleansed
without “blood” (verse 4-5); and as blood is the antidote to sin the
uncleanness must have been caused by sin. Whose sin? First, the “offence” of
Adam; and second, its consequence: viz., “sin in the flesh” of the child. The uncleanness
was inherited; and therefore the blood of the lamb” “pigeon,” or “turtledove,”
denominated “a sin-offering” (Lev. Xii. 6), was a justification from inherited
sin. The other was, by “a man child,” made “unclean seven days” 9verse 2); and
on the “eighth day” it was “circumcised” (verse 3). The mother was then to “continue
in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days” (verse 4). But for “a maid
child” she was “unclean two weeks,” and was required to “continue in the blood
of her purifying three score and six days” (verse 5). Thus circumcision in the
case of “the man child” diminished the uncleanness of the mother by one-half,
and was consequently a justification ceremony of the same efficacy as that of “a
sin offering.”
To this Mosaic enactment, the Son of Mary, “made
under the law” (Gal. iv. 4), was no exception. The expression “that holy thing”
(Luke i. 35) applied to him before birth is used in the same sense as the word,
“holy,” in 1 Cor. vii. 14, to describe legitimacy of origin and also to
indicate that he was a “first born son” (Luke ii. 7), all of whom were “called
holy to the Lord” (Luke ii. 23). The holiness of first-born sons did not exempt
them from circumcision, nor prevent their mother from being defiled by them.
Hence at “eight days of age the child Jesus was circumcised” (Luke ii. 21), and
subsequently his mother continued in “the days of her purification according to
the law of Moses” (ver. 22). This was the first act of justification of which
Jesus partook. Its effect was to transfer him from the state of “condemnation”
to death, under which he was born, into the condition described as being “alive”
(Rom. vii. 9). In that “alive” condition he continued until the close of his
career; for when, on arriving at years of discretion, “the commandment came,”
his “sin in the flesh” did not “revive,” and as a consequence he did not “die.”
That is, he did not by his own act incur death, and therefore he did not
require to die symbolically in the death of a sacrificial animal.
As “the true tabernacle, which the Lord
pitched, and not man” (Heb. viii. 2), Jesus, like the Mosaic tabernacle,
required “atonement” (Lev. Xvi. 33); for a like reason, and for the same
object. The reason was physical defilement, and the object to provide a fit
dwelling place for Jehovah. As “the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle”
(Exod. xl. 35), so “the spirit” abode in Jesus Christ without “measure” (Jno.
iii. 34). This was no doubt, one of the objects, perhaps the chief one for
which circumcision was instituted; that he who was made to “hope” from his “mother’s
breasts,” and was “cast upon” God “from the womb” (Ps. xxii. 9, 10), should have
the benefit of a justification from inherited sin from his earliest days.
“Circumcision verily profiteth if thou keep
the law” (Rom. ii. 25). In what way did it profit? It could not give eternal
life; “for if there has been a law by which could have given life, verily
righteousness should have been by the law” (Gal. iii. 21). What then was the
profit? It spared from premature death, and maintained uninterrupted
reconciliation with God. Jesus Christ was the only Jew who thus profited
through keeping the law. Did he not die a premature death? Yes; but how? In regard
to the Mosaic law, by a voluntary surrender of his life. Although he prayed to
God, “take me not away in the midst of my days” (Ps. cii. 24), yet he made the
announcement, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (Jno. x. 15). Up to the time
immediately preceding his being nailed to the cross the Mosaic “ministration of
condemnation” (2 Cor. iii. 9) had no hold upon him But as soon as he was hung upon a tree he came under that “condemnation;” that is, he was “cursed” by the
law (Gal. iii. 13), and from that “curse” he could only be cleansed by the
shedding of his blood. At the same time and for the same reason “the true
tabernacle” (Heb. viii. 2) became unfit for the indwelling of Jehovah; hence,
the spirit left Jesus, and he cried out “My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken
me?” (Matt. xxvii. 46). By “the curse of the law” his circumcision was made
uncircumcision” (Rom. ii. 25); but by his death he underwent a higher form of
circumcision; “he was cut off from the land of the living (Isa. liii. 8).
Although nailed to the tree by “wicked hands” (Acts ii. 23) it was the result of
providential arrangement; “thou couldest have no power at all against me,
except it were given thee from above” (Jno. xix. 11). Jesus Christ died “the
death of the cross” (Phil. ii. 8) but not in the same way as others; he did not
die simply through physical exhaustion. There was an element in his case which
was absent from that of the two thieves, viz. grief for sin. This explains why
he died before them (Jno. xix. 31-33). He died of a “broken heart” (Ps. lxix.
20); and hence when the soldier “pierced his side, forthwith came there out
blood and water” (Jno. xix. 34). His heart had literally ruptured, and, the red
and white portions of the blood had become separated. The grief which produced
this result is evidence of the completeness with which Christ had, during his
probation, practised “circumcision of the heart” (Rom. ii. 29), described as “circumcision
made without hands” (Col. ii. 11), which, if absent, would have rendered the “circumcision”
which ended his life of no avail (Rom. ii. 25) he had “cut off” everything from
his affections pertaining to “sinful flesh” and this was consummated by a
voluntary cutting off of his life for justification from sin.
The baptism of John was like the Mosaic law,
an addition to the Abrahamic covenant. It was instituted “for the remission of
sins” (Mark. i. 4). To the surprise of John, Jesus applied “to be baptised of
him;” and, in answer to John’s objection said, “Suffer it to be so now: for
thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. iii. 13-15).
Submission to this ceremony, was therefore a necessary part of the “righteousness”
of Christ. For what reason? Was it a test of obedience without doctrinal
significance? If it was in his case, it was in the case of others But it was
not in their case; for they “were baptised confessing their sins” (Matt. iii.
6), and as a consequence they received “remission of sin.” Had Christ any sins requiring
“remission”? Had had no personal transgressions, but He possessed “sin in the
flesh” inherited from Adam; his submission to the baptism of John was a
practical confession of this fact and a recognition of the necessity of his
death in order to be cleansed. Being a symbol of his death it was a
justification, by shadow from the sin which required that death. Had he not
been thus justified by circumcision? He had; but inasmuch as a shadow justification
is not perfect it will bear repetition to any extent. Previous to baptism by
John, Jesus had been hidden from Israel; he was now about to be revealed as the
“beloved Son” with whom the Father was “well pleased” (Matt. iii. 17). It was
fitting that before being “manifested to take away our sins” (I Jno. iii. 4),
he should publicly acknowledge his own relationship to sin, and also
illustrate, symbolically, the impossibility of escaping therefrom without his
own death. The ceremony which cleansed the Jews, who were “baptised of John in
Jordan” (Matt. iii. 6) from the moral defilement, was equally efficacious in
cleansing Jesus from his physical defilement. In both cases it was temporary,
until ratified by the death of Christ as a sacrifice.
The necessity for the justification of Jesus
Christ was foretold by the Psalmist when representing him as saying to Jehovah,
“in thy sight shall no man living be justified” (Ps. cxliii. 2). To be
justified in God’s sight is
impossible for anyone inheriting the sin-nature; that nature must be covered by blood-shedding before a man
can do anything relating to a future life, acceptable to God. There is no
disadvantage in this, because God has made ample provision for inherited sin to
be covered. In instituting circumcision God placed the Jew in a position
whereby, as soon as he knew the Divine requirements, he could perform them. And
in the analogous ceremony of baptism He has given the Gentile the opportunity,
as soon as he knows what he has received from Adam and what he may obtain
through Christ, of becoming justified from inherited and committed sin. (J.J.
Andrew, The Blood of the Covenant: Is
Efficacy in Baptism, Resurrection and Immortalization [Conway, Ark.: J.W.
Teas, 1927], 21-23, italics in original)
Elsewhere
Andrew wrote:
According to custom, Jesus Christ was
crucified naked, as indicated by the fact that “many women were there beholding
afar off” (Matt. xxvii. 55). This feature possesses a doctrinal significance, which
is referred to in the statement that “for the oy that was set before him” he “endured
the cross, despising the shame” (Heb.
xii. 2). He was then in the condition of Adam and his wife after partaking of
the forbidden tree and before being “clothed” with “coats of skins” (Gen. iii.
21); they realized through sin “that they were naked” (Gen. iii. 7), and as a
consequence experienced “shame.” The “sin-in-the-flesh” transmitted by them has
the same effect, and hence Christ partook of it. Having lost through “the curse
of the law” the covering for sin provided by circumcision and baptism he was
now, in relation to the Edenic and Mosaic laws, in an unjustified condition; he
was physically as unclean as he was between birth and circumcision; and the
nakedness apparent to the human eye was a counterpart of his nakedness in the
sight of God. Although he possessed a record of a blameless life, he could
derive no benefit therefrom until his naked condition had been covered by the
shedding of his blood. (Ibid., 24)
Further Reading