“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).

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).

We cannot have a proper understanding of the death of Christ, who was the second Adam, unless we have a clear perception of the cause of the death of the first Adam. At his creation Adam is described as being “very good”. If there were no physical change in him at the time of his condemnation, he must have remained so throughout his life. In such a case his posterity, who inherited the qualities of his physical organization, would surely he described by later writers as having at least something good present in their nature: but Scripture says: “in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom 7:18).

Initially, Adam was not hampered with the shackles of sin, the bondage of corruption, nor sorrow of heart and bodily pain. Instead, he was a “living soul” (neither mortal nor immortal), entirely free from the power of sin and death But the transgression brought both a moral and a physical change. There was implanted in it the seeds of decay, which ultimately brought forth death. His flesh became what the Bible calls “sinful flesh”. ‘Sin’ became a law of his being — a physical property in his constitution. This principle was called “sin in the flesh”, and it was transmitted to all his descendants, Jesus Christ included (cp the genealogy in Luke 3). If Adam had been obedient for some determinate period, we might suppose that God would have allowed him to enter eternal life without dying, because there was no sin in his flesh before he fell. But with Christ it was quite different. In being born of Mary — “made of a woman” — he was ‘made sin’ (2Co 5:21); he became a partaker of the nature that had sin in its constitution — the law of sin and death in its members. And as that law had not been abrogated, Christ’s obedience could not exempt him from death; he could not enter eternal life alone without dying.

In Mat 19 a young man addressed Jesus as “Good Master”. Christ replied: “Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one… God” (vv 16.17). What was there about the Son of God that was not good? His moral character was flawless, perfect, and unparalleled in history (Joh 8:46). The excellence of his life and conduct was such as evoked from Pilate the declaration: “I find no fault in him” (Joh 19:4,6). What was there in him, then, that was faulty or not good? Surely it was his defiled and unclean nature inherited from Adam through Abraham, David, and Mary.

That nature was originally “very good” and free from the principle of death, but now it had been physically changed in this respect by the introduction of “the law of sin and death in its members”. While being perfect morally Jesus was yet not “very good” physically. Had he been as undefiled physically as he was morally or as good physically as Adam was before the Fall, death would have had no claim on him whatever. Consequently there would have been an injustice committed in giving such an one over to death. But had he been as imperfect morally as he was physically, there would have been no resurrection and consequently no salvation. Both features were required in the plan of redemption that God “might be just and the justifier of him who believeth” (Rom 3:26).

“Sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3) when personified in Scripture is called “the devil” (Heb 2:14,15). Part of the mission of Christ was to destroy this devil through death. This mission would have been impossible if sin as a physical element had had no existence in him. But having sin in him constitutionally, we can see how he “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (Heb 9:26). This diabolos, or devil, being in all the descendants of Adam, is called “our old man” and “the old man”. In mankind generally we see “the old man with his deeds” (Col 3:9), but in Christ “the old man” existed without his deeds, that is, without evildoing. In his death the old man was crucified, that the body of sin might he destroyed (cp Rom 6:6): the enmity (Gen 3:15) in himself was slain and abolished (Eph 2:16). There was justice in his death, and justification in his resurrection. In his death there was a declaration of God’s righteousness (Rom 3:26 again), by showing man’s sinfulness even by nature, and in his resurrection an illustration of the fact that God would not suffer His Holy One (even in sin’s flesh) to see corruption (Psa 16:10; Acts 2:27; 13:35).

Because of the whole argument above, it is wrong to suggest that death was inherent in Adam’s nature from his creation. Those who maintain that mortality was a law of his being even before the transgression, and that as a result of his disobedience he was simply driven from the garden and allowed to die when his nature wore out, are in fact teaching that that which worketh death in us was in Adam before he sinned. They are also suggesting that, contrary to Rom 5:12, death did not come by sin, but rather by the law of nature as at first constituted. Such a position also destroys the force of the reasoning in Heb 2:14, as to why Christ needed to be partaker of our nature and nullifies the statement that the power of death lay in the diabolos, or “sin in the flesh”. To suggest that the Diabolos already existed in Adam even before the Fall requires that it must have been a “very good” Diabolos, and if “very good”, then why destroy it?

This latter reasoning leads inevitably to confusion. It is far simpler and more satisfying to accept the fact that there was no Diabolos in Adam’s flesh prior to the fall. The implantation of the law of sin and death in his members by God’s sentence was the introduction of something that did not previously exist there. That ‘something’, having in it the power of death, was transmitted to all born in him, causing death to pass upon all (Rom 5:12). The only way of salvation for any of the children of Adam who are passing away under this irrevocable law is by the destruction of this evil principle. Christ destroyed this evil principle in his nature by death, after living a morally perfect, upright and holy life, keeping all God’s commandments. This act entitled him to a resurrection from the dead.

What was accomplished in Christ was a moral impossibility with mankind, because of the depravity of their nature, caused by indwelling sin. No man, left to himself, is able to keep the law of God perfectly and sin not: and, consequently, no man is able to secure for himself a resurrection to life. God, who understands this and knows what is in man, sees the weakness of the flesh and has pity upon His children. In His infinite love and wisdom, God developed a plan of redemption by sending His own Son in sinful flesh.

Concerning the working out of this plan, God was in Christ — in him by His Spirit which dwell in him without measure, specially strengthening him for the purpose at hand (Psa 80:17). It was God in Christ that enabled him to overcome the world, the flesh, and the devil, or sin in the flesh. Through death he destroyed this devil, and by a shedding of his blood offered a sacrifice for sin’s flesh, and therefore could and did thereby obtain eternal redemption for himself because of his holy life. God’s purpose from the beginning was the perfecting of one of the race for the salvation of many. Jesus was a declaration of God’s righteousness showing the justice of His dealings with the human race. Through forbearance, God remits or passes over the sins of all coming unto Him through this perfected Son, whom He has established as a mediator, and in whom He has been sanctified. The conditions for such forgiveness are faith in His promises and a manifestation of that faith by obedience.

Thus God has opened up a way through His dear Son whereby many shall be redeemed from death. As in Adam we die, so in Christ we shall be made alive (1Co 15:22). In Adam we partake of his sinfulness, and in Christ we are covered by his righteousness (2Co 5:21). Christ having had our nature, “our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Rom 6:6). For those whose sins are remitted, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not alter the flesh, but alter the Spirit”. The law of the Spirit of life in Jesus Christ makes us free from the law of sin and death (Rom 8:1,2). And so it is that “as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom 5:19). But it must be the obedience of one of the race that was under the condemnation of death. This was the case with Jesus Christ, who was the Son of man as well as the Son of God, and thus it was not possible for him to enter eternal life alone without dying.

Some may protest that in emphasizing his Adamic condemnation and defilement by sinful flesh we are belittling Christ. Not so. It is really honoring Christ to recognize that a life of perfect obedience was achieved, as it were, against the grain of a nature encompassed with the infirmities of the flesh. To maintain that somehow Christ was not defiled misses the glorious plan of redemption that God has worked out in Christ.

“For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist… If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds” (2Jo 1:7,10,11).

Why does the kind and loving Apostle John write so harshly in these verses? Surely it is because the Truth can least afford compromise on this very question of the nature of Christ. To water down, or explain away, such plain statements as have been discussed here, is to introduce an element that disrupts and distorts the plan of salvation at its very heart: the sacrifice of Christ.

[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).