The Sacrifice of Christ
has accomplished two things
1 Sin has been condemned
2 The promises have been confirmed
Romans 8v3 & 15v8
THEREFORE WE CAN GAIN ETERNAL LIFE
AND INHERIT THE PROMISES WHEN JESUS
CHRIST RETURNS TO SET UP THE KINGDOM
It is recommended to look under 'Index' or follow this link to 'devil' for
No.1. And then to follow this link to 'promises' (also end of page) for No.2.
It will also be useful (after reading this page) to link to 'baptism' .
When sin entered the world and death by sin, there was no way by which
man could redeem himself. God however has revealed a plan whereby sin
will be taken away and righteousness established, so that the human race
will ultimately be restored to the Divine favor.This involves providing His
own Son, made of a woman by His holy spirit power. Jesus would be able
to live a sinless life and become a sacrifice for sin. Because He did no sin,
He was raised from the dead on the third day. God accepts those who
identify themselves with this representative man by a belief of the Truth
and baptism into Him (i.e. Jesus Christ). See under 'Index' or follow this
link to 'judgment' (page 2 -"in Adam" and "in Christ"). Cp Ephesians 1v
10. Only in this way can we share in what God in Christ has achieved.
Now that the way to eternal life has been made open, the promises, which
involve an eternal inheritance, can be fulfilled. Jesus Christ, as the prom-
ised "seed" in all 3 promises, has, by His sacrifice, made their fulfilment
sure. When He returns from heaven, He will select His co-inheritors. They
will comprise all who have committed themselves totally to God in Christ,
and who have remained faithful to their calling, whatever the cost.
The Truth is made up of various facets, and the basic fundamentals that
we highlight on this site are all inter-related. It is impossible to reject any
of these truths without undermining the whole. It is similar to a building
where one or more of the foundations may be missing, or otherwise is
shown to be inadequate. The integrity of the whole structure is compro-
mised. In our examination of various false ideas on the Sacrifice of
Christ this will be found to be the case. Should we find that the word of
God teaches something opposed to what may have been previously learnt
by tradition, let us accept the words of the prophet- "To the law and to
the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there
is no light in them"- Isaiah 8v20. The Apostle Paul wrote- "the holy scrip-
tures..ARE ABLE to make us WISE UNTO SALVATION through faith
which is in Christ Jesus"- 2nd Timothy 3v15. Concerning the totality of
basic doctrines, look under 'Index' or follow this link to 'statement'.
It is our intention to examine in more detail some of the false ideas extant
concerning the Sacrifice of Christ. As an introduction to this examination
we look briefly here at what effect the false idea of "the trinity" would
have upon the truth of that sacrifice. It will also be useful to look under
should we believe in a non-existent Jesus, a person self-evidently NOT a
representative man, but a superior being, can this possibly be accepta-
ble? Indeed, how could such an imaginary being fit the description of Je-
sus in Hebrews 4v15-"in all points tempted like as we are, yet without
sin"? And when we realise that this horrible caricature of the Divine
plan of salvation has its origin in paganism, surely the sooner we consign
it to the dustbin of history, the sooner we individually can have hope of
the sanctification for which Jesus prayed - "Sanctify them through thy
truth: thy word is truth"- John 17v17. Part of that truth is contained in
v3- "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God,
and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" i.e. "sent from God", as was
John the Baptist, John 1v6, or Isaiah the prophet, Isaiah 6v5-10.
See also the words of Paul re "another Jesus", 2nd Corinthians 11v1-4.
Below, we shall examine other false teachings re the Sacrifice of Christ,
which also totally negate & destroy the truth of this vital subject.
TRUTH VERSUS ERROR ON THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST
The hallmark of all heretical teachings is that in some way they
present the Lord's sacrificial death as substitutionary, and not
representative. The truth is that Jesus needed saving from the re-
sults of sin at the beginning, because He was born of a woman.
His sin-cursed nature, equally with the nature of those whom He
came to save, needed to be condemned by a sinless sacrifice. It
is however equally important to realise that no-one is accounted
as "guilty" in a moral or legal sense because of the sin in Eden-
(the "church" teaching of 'original sin'). Contrast Ezekiel 18v20.
These two extremes are alike error. They illustrate the principle
outlined in our 'Appeal' letter–link to 'appeal' or go via 'Index'.
Because He was the Son of God, Jesus committed no sin, some-
thing which no-one born of two human parents could achieve.
God therefore raised Him from the dead and He now is an imm-
ortal man, and a mediator through whom we can approach God.
Romans 8v3; 2nd Corinthians 5v21; Colossians 2v15mg;
Hebrews 2v14, 7v27, 9v11, 12, 22-28, 13v20;
1st Peter 2v24; Acts 2v22-36; Romans 3v19-28, 5v6-21;
1st Corinthians 15v20-28; Hebrews 4v15; 1st Timothy 2v5.
We shall now examine in more detail some erroneous teachings.
These are additional to the "trinitarian" heresy above.
1. 'The Sacrifice of Christ was a ransom, whereby the innocent was
punished, allowing the guilty to go free'. THIS IS ERROR.
The only way this could be true would be if Jesus remained in
the grave, so that others could live. We know that is not true, &
not what has happened! Every one's justice would baulk at such
an unrighteous idea- and Divine justice condemns it. The orig-
inal words translated "ransom" carry the meanings of 'a cover-
ing', 'a redemption price', and 'to loosen, or destroy'. It is not
difficult to see how Jesus Christ as "the lamb of God" has pro-
vided that covering for sin; He has figuratively paid the price of
redemption for His people, including Himself (but in reality we
are "justified freely"), and He has loosed the bonds of sin and
death. One writer (Robert Roberts) has summed it up thus-
"(Christ's sacrifice) was righteously so done because of his phy-
sical participation in the results of Edenic transgression. His res-
urrection was in righteousness also; for "he did no sin, neither
was guile found in his mouth". Forgiveness on this basis is by
grace (favour) and not of debt; for the death of Christ is not the
payment of our debt but the declaration of God's righteousness,
on our recognition and submission to which, He is pleased to
pass by our sins of His own kindness and forbearance."
It is vital that all legalistic/mechanical reasoning be discarded-
only then is it possible to fully comprehend salvation in Christ.
2. 'The Sacrifice of Christ was of benefit for Himself, but only
because it involved His final act of obedience. It did not involve
a personal need for purification from "sinful flesh" by sacrifice
& resurrection'. THIS IS ERROR.
Books which promulgate this error include:
'Echoes of Past Controversies', 'Saved by His Life', 'Bible Basics',
'The Real Devil', 'Understanding The Atonement',
'The Relationship of Christ to His Death on the Cross'.
'The Atonement - The Divine Balance'.
'The Lampstand' magazine also promotes it, and tries to re-write
Christadelphian history to suit its own nefarious ends.
Judging by its web-site 'The Christadelphian' magazine has now
also fallen from the sound teaching of its first editor Robert Roberts.
The above publications circulate amongst 'Central Christadelphians'.
Reflecting the prevailing belief of the large majority,'wikipedia' also
now sets out the same heresy as the belief of "Christadelphians".
Sound Christadelphians refer to this ghastly error as "clean flesh".
Teachers of this heresy use the unscriptural terms (re human nature)
"sin-prone" and "prone to sin" and "with its inclination to sin" and
"with the potential to sin" etc. instead of "sinful" (Romans 8v3).
Contrast Romans 7v18 - "in my flesh dwelleth no good thing" -
link to 'the Yahweh-Nissi altar' for a graphic illustration.
In this way they deny the inherent sinfulness of human nature* - and
therefore they also deny the essential truth of the Sacrifice of Christ
(*a really horrible and disgraceful example of where this leads has
recently come to our notice - thoughts are attributed to the Lord
which would effectively make Him a sinner – details on request)
Again, this error denies the truly representative nature of His
sacrifice. It thus does away with the fact that "God..condemn-
ed sin in the flesh" and "Jesus..through death..destroy(ed)..the
devil". What was the "sin" and "devil" "condemned" and "des-
troyed"? The proponents of this heresy can logically only de-
fine these terms as simply active sin, or "the works of the devil".
It is true that Jesus was provided as a Saviour, but in the process
He partook of the same sin-cursed mortal nature as ourselves.
Although He was sinless, He needed salvation as we do from
this condition. We thank God that"by his own blood he(Jesus)en-
tered in once into the holy place,having obtained eternal redem-
ption" (the words "for us", in italics, should not appear,for the
original signifies something which one does for oneself-"for
us" is omitted in the Revised version etc) - Hebrews 9v12.
As it has been aptly stated-
"For himself that it might be for us" (Robert Roberts, 'The
Law of Moses'). Robert Roberts also wrote - "What was acc-
omplished was ACCOMPLISHED IN HIM ALONE. We
come onto the foundation HE LAID . It does not appear how
the Sacrifice of Christ COULD BE SCRIPTURALLY UN-
DERSTOOD without this being perceived. Away from this, the
heathen notion of substitution is THE ONLY IDEA THAT RE-
MAINS"- 'The Christadelphian', April 1888, inside front cover.
"It was A NECESSITY that he should offer up himself,FOR THE
PURGING OF HIS OWN NATURE, first, from the uncleanness
of death, that having by his own blood OBTAINED ETERNAL
REDEMPTION (Heb. ix. 12), he might be able AFTERWARDS
to save to the uttermost, them that come unto God by him -
(Heb. vii. 25)" - 'The Christadelphian', October 1873, page 468.
"Truly it was "for us"...but unfortunately perverted are those who
suppose that because God manifest in the flesh went through all
pation in Adamic mortality" -
'The Christadelphian', December 1873, page 555.
Another writer, W.F. Barling, has written the following-
"It follows that Christ's death possessed an efficacy for him-
self also. This the Apostle established by an interpretation
of the Tabernacle ritual. Atonement had to be made for the
alter, "to cleanse it and hallow it from the uncleanness of the
children of Israel" Lev. 16:18-19. Atonement had similarly
to be made for the other vessels of the Tabernacle, and even
for the Tabernacle itself (verse 16), because it was in the
midst of uncleanness (Heb. 9:21). Thus where moral sin did
not exist, uncleanness necessitated atonement still. But
"without the shedding of blood" such "remission" or "purg-
ing" was not possible (verse 22). The Apostle tells us what
this signified. "It was therefore necessary that the patterns
of things in the heavens should be purified with these (blood,
water, hyssop, etc., verse 19); but the heavenly things them-
selves with better sacrifices than these" (verse 23).
Let the parallelism be noted.
(a) The patterns of things in the heavens were purified, with
(b) The heavenly things themselves had like wise to be puri-
fied, but with better sacrifices.
Such purification was not in either case a purification of mo-
ral sin, but of the uncleanness resulting from contact with
sin. In the case of "the heavenly things themselves" (i.e., the
person of Jesus), such uncleanness was removed when he
"put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (verse 26). "By his
own blood he entered in once into the holy place" (verse 12),
that is, "into heaven itself" (verse 24). Without such atone-
ment, his physical entry into God's presence (thanks to
which alone "we have access unto the Father" — Eph. 2:18)
would have been impossible"-
'The Christadelphian', 1946.
Later re-printed as 'Redemption in Christ Jesus'.
Amongst other relevant quotations please note the following:
"The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture...It
is that in the flesh "which has the power of death"; and it is called sin,
because the development, or fixation, of this evil in the flesh, was the
result of transgression. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every
part of the flesh, the animal nature is called "sinful flesh"..Sin, I say,
is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regard-
ed as unclean..Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Je-
sus, if it had not existed there..Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature
of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin..The great
principle to be compassed was THE CONDEMNATION OF SIN IN
SINFUL FLESH, INNOCENT OF ACTUAL TRANSGRESSION".
- John Thomas, 'Elpis Israel'.
"It pleased God to require the ceremonial condemnation of this sin-
nature in the person of a righteous possessor of it, as the basis of our
- Robert Roberts, 'The Blood of Christ'.
"Heb. 9:23..is therefore a declaration that it was necessary that Christ
should first of all be purified with better sacrifices than the Mosaic..
There must, therefore, be a sense in which Christ..must not only have
been sanctified by the action of the antitypical oil of the Holy Spirit-
but purged by the antitypical blood of his own sacrifice..HE WAS
"PURIFIED WITH" A BETTER SACRIFICE THAN BULLS AND
GOATS-VIZ., HIS OWN SACRIFICE..FROM...HIS HEREDITARY
-Robert Roberts, 'The Law of Moses'.
During a debate, Robert Roberts was asked the following questions,
to which we add the answers which he gave.
Q "Is it not clear that Christ, as a necessity, must offer up himself for
the purging of his own sin nature?".
A "As a son of Adam, a son of Abraham, a son of David, yes".
Q "First from the uncleanness of death, that having by his own blood
obtained eternal life himself, he might be able to save others?".
Q "And he as the first one had to undergo purification through his
shed blood and resurrection?".
A "Certainly, I have never called that in question in the least".
- 'Resurrectional Responsibility Debate', Questions 711, 712, 719.
go to messages - page 3