Adamic Condemnation

The subject of "Adamic Condemnation" has been a source of controversy and division among Christadelphians since very near the beginning of our movement. The first major division was over this subject, when a man had developed a theory that Christ, with only one human parent, could not possibly have been born under Adamic Condemnation, and this led him to renounce Christadelphian teachings. As extremes beget extremes, soon another man developed a theory against the first that suggested (correctly) that Jesus was born under Adamic Condemnation, but then he went on to claim erroneously that possessing "Adamic Condemnation" was so serious, that it made Jesus morally guilty of sin, "alienated" from God by birth; and a "child of wrath." This man ultimately concluded that God wouldn’t bring a man out of the ground to resurrection who had not been redeemed from Adamic Condemnation by baptism, supposing it was possible to escape judgment through disobedience. This was shortly followed by another reaction by other brethren, that argued correctly that Adamic Condemnation wasn’t moral, but then took the extreme erroneous position that it wasn’t even sinful. They argued that in fact, Adamic Condemnation only symbolized sin, but was not actually sin.

There are now more new and uncertain sounds coming from those calling themselves Christadelphians, and from quarters traditionally sound on this subject. In opposition to those who deny the physical sinfulness of human nature, an old theory once rejected, is being reintroduced which divides the law of sin from the law of death, and speculates as to how both are separately removed by sacrifice and resurrection. As it now stands, we can look at this revised theory and very gingerly, and very uncomfortably say it does not appear to do serious damage to Christadelphian thought. But it is usually where these theories end up that do the damage, not where they start. And we wonder why such speculation is necessary. Finding and holding the middle ground on this subject should not be so hard. It has been plainly laid out for over 100 years in the writings of bre. Thomas and Roberts.

Adamic Condemnation, simply defined is the sentence that Adam received in the Garden, following his sin and judgment. It is this sentence which made his death inevitable. It is this sentence that made death man’s inevitable destiny, and thereby this sentence of death defiled him. It also made the changes that had occurred in his body as the direct result of his transgression to become permanently established in his body, and thereby necessarily transmitted to all his descendants.

We were once asked: "How can a sentence defile anything.?" This is a mere toying with words. Of course a sentence cannot defile anything. But the enactment of the sentence--that is, the permanent establishment of the law of sin and death within Adamic nature by God–(which is what is intended in these words,) defiled the man, and became a physical law of his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.

To fully grasp what the sentence is, and what it did, we must start with Adam and Eve in the day of their formation, sometimes called their novitiate. Then we must consider them through their temptation and the time sin entered the world by their eating of the tree, and finally, ending with their judgment and sentence to death.

In the beginning, Adam and Eve were styled by God in Gen. 1:31 "very good." And in Genesis 2:7, they are called a living soul, which if properly translated should have been, "a body of life."

In this condition, Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil, only a knowledge of the good that God had theretofore taught them. They had no knowledge of sin, except in knowing that the goodness of God had forbidden them to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And they had no knowledge of death, except in the warning they had been given, that if they ate of the tree, that they would eventually die. They stood unclothed in each other’s presence, and in the presence of the Angels or "Elohim," and felt no shame because sin and death had no experimental meaning to them.

Was the law of sin and death in these "very good" bodies? It’s potential was there, but it was not there as a "law" that destined man to be sinful and therefore deathful. It was in a condition describe best by bro. John Thomas as "latent." "Latent" is a medical term to describe an illness that is in the body, but not, at this point, active, or causing any harm. The potential to establish sin and death was in the "very good" body, but it was not having any effect on anything, and therefore was of no practical moment. The ‘very good" body was of the earth, earthy (1 Cor. 15:47.) Earthy bodies are not capable of eternal life, and therefore this body was capable of death, and corruptible (1 Cor. 15:43) and so in consequent, mortal (1 Cor. 15:53.)

"Mortal" becomes a very confusing word in these discussions, because we have no word that adequately describes the "very good" state. The "very good" body was mortal in that it could die. But it was not mortal in the sense of dyING. Death came by sin, and Adam was not created in sin. God had taken care, through the tree of lives, that though the body was earthy and therefore could die, it would not die if Adam and Eve successfully completed their probation. The English word "mortal" is from the Latin "mors" meaning "death" and "tal" a suffix indicating "full." The "very good" body was able to die, which we would understand in English as mortal, but neither "full of death" or destined to die, which are also meanings included in our English word "mortal." So was Adam mortal in the sense that he could die? Yes. But was he mortal in that he would die? No! Hence we see the pioneer brethren, and we ourselves, use the term "mortal" of the very good body, in recognition that it could die; yet at the same time deny the mortality of the very good body, in that it was not truly dying till the transgression, and apart from transgression, in the plan of God, it would not die.

Elpis Israel: Adam in his Novitiate by bro John Thomas "While in the state of good unmixed with evil, were Adam and Eve mortal or immortal? This is a question which presents itself to many who study the Mosaic account of the origin of things. It is an interesting question, and worthy of all attention. Some hastily reply, they were mortal; that is, if they had not sinned they would nevertheless have died. It is probable they would after a long time, if no further change had been operated upon their nature. But the Tree of Life seems to have been provided for the purpose of this change being effected, through the eating of its fruit, if they had proved themselves worthy of the favour. The animal nature will sooner or later dissolve. It was not constituted so as to continue in life for ever, independent of any further modification. We may admit, therefore, the corruptibility, and consequent mortality, of their nature, without saying that they were mortal. The inherent tendency of their nature to death would have been arrested; and they would have been changed as Enoch and Elijah were; and as they of whom Paul says, "We shall not all die" The "we" here indicated possess an animal, and therefore corruptible nature; and, if not "changed," would surely die: but inasmuch as they are to "be changed in the twinkling of an eye at the last trumpet", though corruptible, they are not mortal. In this sense, therefore, I say, that in their novitiate, Adam and his betrothed had a nature capable of corruption, but were not subject to death, or mortal. The penalty was "dying thou shalt die"; that is, "You shall not be permitted to eat of the Tree of Life in arrest of dissolution; but the inherent tendency of your animal nature shall take its course, and return you to the dust whence you originally came". Mortality was in disobedience as the wages of sin, and not a necessity."

Sin nature, the Diabolos, or that which the apostle Paul describes as "sin that dwelleth in me" was also in the "very good" body as we shall see in the temptation of Eve. But like death, such too had no practical reality.

The potential for sin and death in this latent condition in the "very good" bodies, was not in any practical way considered sinful by God. According to the plan and purpose of God, sin requires blood shedding sacrifice for purification and redemption of the sinner, and with whatever teaching that the Elohim had done in the garden, there is no evidence that the concept of sacrifice had been introduced to Adam and Eve.

Elpis Israel: The way of the Tree of Life, by bro. John Thomas "Religion is not coeval with the formation of man; neither had it any existence during his novitiate. Though it was instituted in the paradise, it was not for his observance there; for while he continued the sinless tenant of the garden, he stood in no need of the healing consolations it affords. Until he ate of the forbidden fruit, there was no breach of friendship, no misunderstanding, no alienation, between him and the Lord God; there needed not, therefore, any means, or system of means, for the reconciliation of estranged parties. But, as soon as the good understanding was interrupted by disobedience to the Eden law, sentence of condemnation to the dust was pronounced upon the offenders; and means were instituted to put them at one again with the Lord, that He might bring them back from the ground, no longer naked and ashamed of their condition; but clothed with glory and honour, incorruptibility and life, as a crown of righteousness that should never fade away."

Adam and Eve, following their creation in these "very good" bodies, were on their probation. While on this probation, a tempter appears in the form of the serpent. The serpent was also "very good" and a part of God’s creation, but it lacked responsibility to God. When it spoke, it spoke from its observations of the world around him, and not from divine training, such as Adam and Eve were receiving. It didn’t intend to lie, and didn’t know it was lying. But it did lie, none the less. It probably reasoned to Eve that nothing in the garden dies. It is all "very good." She wouldn’t die if she ate of the tree she was forbidden to eat from, but she would become wise, like the Elohim.

Eve saw the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh,) pleasant to the eyes (lust of the eyes,) and desired to make one wise (pride of life.) Here is the source of transgression becoming inflamed in Eve as she considered and meditated upon the serpent’s suggestions, and then in Adam as he considered Eve’s. It is what the Apostle John would later describe as all that is in the world:

As Eve reflected on and considered the serpents reasoning, these principles began to blind her. Sin, to be avoided must not be dwelt upon. It must be rejected with God’s teachings instantly, and then dismissed from our thoughts. Jesus in the wilderness following his baptism, tempted by the "Devil," is the perfect example of how to stop such temptation. Answer the temptation with Divine teaching, and leave it instantly.

But the temptation of Eve was not the result of "sin in the flesh." or "sin that dwelleth in me" tempting her. Eve could not make those statements with Paul, since sin was implanted in the man with the transgression, not before. The temptations within Eve arose from a wrong opinion concerning a lawful desire. It was lawful to seek knowledge. It was lawful to desire immortal life. The way she went about obtaining this was not lawful..

With the mulling over of these things--the consideration of the theory that God may be wrong and they would not die--Eve ate of the tree, and then convinced Adam to sin as well. Adam and Eve thought that eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil would make them wise like the Elohim. Instead, it did exactly what it’s name suggested. It made them aware of good AND evil; and this knowledge caused them to understand that they were now evil. They had become sinners and they had become dyING. Now, they were truly mortal in every sense of the word. Immediately commensurate with their sin, the heretofore latent potential of sin and death was now very real, and fully inflamed in their bodies. Instead of being equal to the Elohim, they now felt ashamed in Their presence, and they hid themselves. They were ashamed because of sin, and they looked for a way to cover their shame.

"Thou shalt surely die" is not an accurate translation. It should be rendered, "dying thou shalt die" as it is in the margin of most Bibles. As stated before, Adam and Eve were created earthly and corruptible creatures in their novitiate, but were not dyING or subject to death. But God promised them that if they sinned, then that which protected them from death would be removed, and their dying nature having been inflamed, would take over, and ultimately kill them. After eating of the tree, Adam and Eve found this to be true. Therefore, it is clear that by man came death.

That death came by Adam’s sin is clear from the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 15:21-22: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." By man (Adam) came death, and death from sin. This is repeated by Paul to the Romans 5:15 "...For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many."

DyING began with the transgression. Sin was inflamed by the transgression. Shame began with their new knowledge convicting them of the evil they had committed, and become. To cover their sin and new found shame, Adam and Eve chose fig leaves. With sin’s reasoning inflamed, they were too embarrassed, too ashamed, and probably too incapable of dealing with sin’s thoughts to enquire of God what to do to cover their sin, so they chose a covering of their own devise. This decision proved fatal to them. It proves fatal to all who chose some other covering than the one God requires:

Adam and Eve were called to judgment by God. Having chosen to cover themselves with a covering not of God, they were found guilty of sin, and not forgiven. The penalty was that the inflamation of those latent tendencies which had occurred in them as the result of sin--the inflaming of the law of sin and death in their bodies--would be permanently fixed in their body, thus defiling them and resulting in their death, and the death of all their decendents without exception. Adam and Eve had become truly mortal when they sinned. But the sin with its changes and results was not "Adamic Condemnation." The changes were made permanent and they became destined to die when the sentence of condemnation was pronounced upon them. This sentence is what we as Berean Christadelphians call "Adamic Condemnation" because it is the sentence of condemnation which destined the man to die, which made the changes in the body permanent; and this destiny is what we inherit from Adam.

There is much confusion on the question of whether or not there was a change in Adam and Eve when they ate of the tree, or was the corruptible body they had been created with, simply allowed to continue its corruption, and die. The answer is that there was a change in the earthy nature, not a change to the earthy nature. The sentence did not change Adam and Eve as regards their earthly nature. They were an earthy nature before the fall, and an earthy nature after the fall. But they had created a change in that nature, when the latent characteristics of that nature were ignited. They had also changed their standing before the Elohim. They had inflamed sin and death in their bodies, and the sentence they later received assured them that this was now to be a permanent law in their bodies, and this sentence changed their destiny. But the substance of the body remained the same, "of the earth, earthy." The "body of life" they had been created with, now had become the "body of death" that the apostle Paul lamented, but it was the same earthly body:

The sentence was God’s condemnation upon Adam and Eve that the change in their bodies and in their relationship to God which had occurred in them through sin would not be altered or removed, and that they ultimately would die, as would all their decendents. This we all find to be true.

CHDN.1869 pg 85: By bro. Robert Roberts "But there is a misapprehension lurking under the proposition which we are combating. Our friend imagines there was a change in the nature of Adam when he became disobedient. There is no evidence of this whatever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way. There was a change in Adam's relation to his maker; but not in the nature of his organization. What are the facts? He was formed from the dust a ‘living soul,' or natural body. His mental constitution gave him moral relation to God. He was given a law to observe; the law he disobeyed, and sentence was passed that he (the disobedient living soul) should return to mother earth. What was the difference between his position before disobedience and his position after? Simply this; that in the one case he was a living soul or natural body in probation for immortality; and in the other, he was a living soul or natural body under sentence of death. He was a living soul or natural body in both cases."

Chdn. 1874 pg 86 NO CONTRADICTION

"You said in 1869 that there was no change in Adam’s nature at the time he transgressed. Now you seem to say there was. I see in the same article (1869) you speak of condemnation ‘running in the blood’, which looks like the same position you take now. Does not the threat ‘dying thou shalt die,’ show that Adam was dying"–EC.

"Answer: Is there any difference in the nature between a man in a state of health and a man dying of small pox? No. Both men have the same nature, but it is the same nature in difference states. So Adam, before and after transgression was the same nature, but in two different states–the second state being expressed by the word mortal, or subject to death which is not affirmable of the first. The sentence of death became a physical law in his being; hence it has passed on us who are derived from him. Its passing on us would be incomprehensible on any other principle. God’s sentences are carried out differently than man’s, who has no power beyond mechanical acts. When God decrees death "we have the sentence of death in ourselves" (2 Cor. 1:9) as Paul expresses it. It is a law "working in our members." When man declares death, he has to carry it out with rope or guillotine. This difference has to be kept in view. We bear "the image of the earthy" in its second, or condemned state, in which it becomes "heir" to "ills"unknown to the first. Hence the proverb. When the Doctor speaks of "nature unchanged taking its course" he means nature unchanged into the spiritual body. He does not mean that the law of death, inoperative before, did not set in. He does not contradict himself. The glib assertion that he does only indicates the superficial thinking of the speaker. "Dying thou shalt die" is a Hebraism not to be understood according to the English idiom. It occurs in the description of many other acts eg. "living thou shalt live;" "running thou shalt run;" "hearing thou shalt hear;" &c., &c. It expresses both the act and the result as future to the time of speaking. Hence, when it was said to Adam, "dying thou shalt die" it amounted to an intimation that the "dying" would not commence till transgression. No one having understanding of the Hebrew idiom would suggest that it meant he was dying. (Note the question: does the "threat" dying thou shalt die imply that Adam was already dying before he sinned. Bro. Roberts answers" No, death began with the transgression.–JP)

Following the condemnation placed upon Adam and Eve, God then provided a way that Adamic Condemnation, with the rest of all that is sin could be removed. He provided a way that the sentence of death could be lifted, or nullified; that transgressions could be forgiven; and that life eternal could be attained. To prophesy of this, God provided them "animal skins" as His desired covering. This covering, we learn from Apocalypse 13:8 was Jesus Christ, where he is described as the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world:

Jesus was the lamb slain from the foundation of the world. He was the animal skins provided to Adam and Eve as an atonement for sins. This was to show that ultimately, it would be through Jesus that the condemnation that came upon us through Adam, would be removed.

One final thought on the fact that it was God’s sentence on the man, and not the sin that defiled the man. After the sin, the path to the tree of life was not blocked. Following the sentence, it was.

If it wasn’t this way, none of us would have any hope. We all sin. But the path to the tree of life is not blocked by those sins. Through the lamb provided, we have a path to that tree. The sentence we receive at our judgment will determine whether or not we have completely covered ourselves with those "lamb skins" or not. The sentence we receive will determine if the path is blocked, if we are excluded from the paradise of God, or if the way is truly opened, and we are included to that great and wonderful kingdom.

According to the plan and purpose of God, (for there is no other reason in all this, but that God willed it) God devised a plan by which His righteousness would be upheld and sin condemned. Based upon our acceptance of, and conformity to the principles established in this plan, God is willing to remove from us, to cancel, annul, or abrogate the sentence of death we all received in our bodies from Adam, to forgive us our sins we commit, and grant to us life everlasting. This plan was worked out in the birth, life, death, resurrection, and immortalization of His son Jesus.

The method chosen by God to remove Adamic condemnation, was the complete and entire repudiation of the flesh that bares this condemnation. Rom. 3:25-26 is the explanation of that plan. These verses read:

Here we are told the reason God is willing to grant us the remission of sins that are past, through His great forbearance. The Divine explanation is that Jesus has been set forth as a "propitiation." This is from the Greek word "hilasterion" and it means " a propitiatory place." It is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew "kapporeth" or the Mercy Seat, "Kapporeth" is from the Hebrew word "Kaphar," which means "to cover." Jesus, our Mercy Seat, is the correct covering for sins as demanded by God. He is the antithesis to the fig leaves chosen by Adam and Eve.

The Mercy Seat in the Most Holy Place was the place where the blood of the sacrificial victim was sprinkled, for the remission of sins. Jesus became our Mercy Seat. If we have faith in the blood of Jesus, that is, if we have faith in the principles exhibited in this selfless act made by Jesus; and if we can understand that God has exhibited Himself Righteous and Just in the blood of Christ, then God is willing to forgive us our sins for Jesus sake.

Here is the great danger in the false doctrines called "Clean Flesh" and "Partial Atonement." Here is the great danger in the "Trinity" and in the doctrine called "Substitution." All four of these doctrines have the identical same thing in common. They cannot explain how God can possibly be exhibited as Right and Just, in requiring Jesus to die the death he died on the cross, since he himself, was sinless.

These doctrines make the mistake at looking too closely at the man Jesus of Nazareth, and not looking at the Christ of God who came to destroy sin. They ask, "how can it be right to say that the sinless Jesus was on the cross offering up himself for himself first, that it might ultimately be for us; since he himself was sinless, therefore had nothing to offer for, and was in no way subject to this death?" They argue: "it is wrong to say that Jesus was cleansed from sin himself by his own sacrifice, since he himself was sinless." They say: "there would be no declaration of God’s righteousness, if God required the sinless Jesus to go through this for himself, being himself sinless."

Their point is well taken. How could that be right? Obviously, it couldn’t be. But those who reason this way ignore the expressed divine declaration that this was, in fact, the case. God’s righteousness and justness IS exhibited in the death of Jesus. That is the Spirit’s testimony. Hence the Spirit wrote: "It pleased the Lord to bruise him." Why? Certainly it would not please God to do injustice or unrighteousness. Certainly God received no pleasure from the death of a righteous man.

The truth is altogether in the opposite direction. Truly, if there was no sin in Jesus as some suggest, then it would have been wrong for him to be there on the cross, and God making this requirement of him, would have been wrong to do so. That is the entire point. The righteousness of God could not in any way be exhibited in requiring the death of Christ, if Jesus was not himself in need of the cleansing that that sacrifice produced–exhibiting God as righteous in requiring Jesus to be on that cross.

The answer to these questions lay in the fact that God calls the physical body "sin" and sin’s flesh" because it is an inseparable element in the conglomerate called sin. If we ignore the fact that the physical body is the root of all sin, and that just as in the tree, the root is inseparable from the fruit; we will never understand this sacrifice. Removing the fruit from the tree, stops fruit for a year, but the fruit comes back the next. Cutting down the tree won’t even stop it, as shoots will come up from the roots, which will again bear fruit. To truly kill the fruit, the root of the tree must be destroyed. So it is with sin. To truly kill sin, sin must be destroyed at its root and source.

The body itself is sin. Not "a sin" in the sense of a moral transgression from which we are guilty and need forgiveness, but sin, nevertheless, from which we all, including Jesus, need redemption. The body is sin, a physical principle that existed in all of Adam’s descendants without exception.

So why should God require this sacrifice of Jesus, to redeem him from this body of sin? The answer will never be seen by looking at the perfect obedience of the life of Jesus, but only by looking at the trial that body which he bore posed to him during his life, as he strove for perfect obedience. That body was killing a sinless man. Jesus was destined to die because of his inherited nature. But that body was trying to do far worse. It was trying to kill him eternally, by tempting him at every turn throughout his whole life. That body was so bad that David, speaking prophetically of Jesus said:

This is that body that Jesus bore, and that Jesus himself recognized as needing to be destroyed. The temptations to Jesus from that body were continuous: a never ending onslaught to try to destroy him by making him fail. These temptations needed to stop, that life could be sweet and enjoyable. And even apart from his own transgression, that body was still going to kill him. Jesus did, therefore, see the need himself to destroy that body he bore, to humiliate and crucify it on the tree as a repudiation of it; that through this sacrifice or slaughter of that body, he might be freed from it. He wasn't there personally, as deserving it. He was there personally, as a bearer of it, and a participant in crucifying it, understanding his own need to be freed from it, and also understanding that the manner God had set in place for freedom from it, was its humiliating destruction.

We were once asked how the destruction of the flesh could be something that pleased God. ("It pleased the Lord to bruise him.") Particularly, at that time, the discussion centered on the symbol of the burnt offering, and the question was how could the destruction of sin nature be a sweet smelling savor to God, as bro. Roberts explains in the Law of Moses. It was reasoned that God made the man, so how could the destruction of the man be a sweet thing to God? We asked how it could be anything but sweet to God. We pointed out that it was not the man that God created that was destroyed, but the man who was corrupted through sin by the sentence God placed on Adam. That is what God destroyed. God hates sin and its compliment, death. The sin-body kills us, and is the source of temptation and sin and death in the world. So, how could God look at it's destruction as anything other than sweet? And the same should go for us. With the inability to see this, all that can be seen is a symbolical event whereby a sinless man dies needlessly, and the injustice of God in requiring it of him.

Law of Moses by bro. Robert Roberts: 1. THE BURNT OFFERING.–"The burnt offering was burnt wholly on the altar (Lev. 1:8-9). It was left to smoulder all night into ashes, and the ashes were removed in the morning. It was called the burnt offering ‘because of the burning upon the altar all night unto the morning’ (6:9). It was an act of worship on the part of a mortal being, apart from guilt of specific offence. Thus Noah, saved from destruction by the flood, ‘took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar’ (Gen. 8:20). Thus also the test of Abraham's faith was to offer Isaac ‘for burnt offering’ (Gen. 22:2). That burnt offering should be required in the absence of particular offence shows that our unclean state as the death-doomed children of Adam itself unfits us for approach to the Deity apart from the recognition and acknowledgment of which the burnt offering was the form required and supplied. It was ‘because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel’, as well as ‘because of their transgressions in all their sins’, that atonement was required for even the tabernacle of the congregation (Lev. 16:16).

"The type involved in complete burning is self-manifest: it is consumption of sin-nature. This is the great promise and prophecy and requirement of every form of the truth; the destruction of the body of sin (Rom. 6:6). It was destroyed in Christ's crucifixion --the ‘one great offering' we ceremonially share it in our baptism' "crucified with Christ", "baptized unto his death" We morally participate in it in putting the old man to death in ‘denying ungodliness and worldly lusts’; and the hope before us is the prospect of becoming subject to such a physical change as will consume mortal nature and change it into the glorious nature of the Spirit.’We shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye!’

"The whole process of consumption is the work of the Spirit, whether we consider the sending forth of Christ to condemn sin in the flesh, or our association with his death in baptism or our repudiation of the old man as the rule of life, or our change at the judgment seat into the incorruptible and glorious nature of the Son of God. When the work is finished, flesh and blood, with all its weakness and its woe, will have ceased from the earth, and given place to a glad and holy race of men immortal and ‘equal to the angels’. It was a beautiful requirement of the wisdom of God in the beginning of things that He should require an act of worship that typified the repudiation of sinful nature as the basis of divine fellowship and acceptability. Those who deny Christ's participation thereof, deny its removal by sacrifice, and therefore deny the fundamental testimony of the gospel, that he is ‘the Lamb of God, taking away the sin of the world’. They think they honour him by saying his flesh-nature was a clean nature. In reality, they deny his qualification for the work he was sent to do. They mistake holiness of character for holiness of nature, and by a wrong use of truth, destroy."

Was it unjust for God to kill the morally sinless Jesus, or to require this sacrifice of Jesus since he lived his life perfectly? If he was not bearing sin in his nature, then the answer would be yes. Jesus had to bear sin, real sin, physically in his body or this would have been an injustice. Since he did bear sin, real sin, physically in his body; there was no injustice because God, and Jesus, and us, if we are to have salvation, all understand the necessity and agree with Jesus’ declaration that all sin must be condemned. This condemnation of sin took place in the flesh of Jesus, which would have been impossible, had there been no sin, real sin, physically there.

These new doctrines talk much about the selflessness of Jesus, and the great gift he gave for us, and it was a great gift. But how is God declared (and that word really means "exhibited") as Right and Just in the process, if Jesus did not stand related to and in need of the cleansing sacrifice he endured for all mankind? God required Jesus to do this.

How was it a right and just thing to command and require this of Jesus? Certainly it would be right and just for God to crucify any of us for sin, because we are all sinners. But Jesus never sinned. And the wages of sin is death. So how was it right to crucify Jesus?

The Slain Lamb by Robert Roberts "Why did Jesus incur its curse in that particular in submitting to be hung on a tree? Because the Father required it of him, which I will prove. "This commandment I have received of my Father." What commandment? To lay down his life. How? He says "The Son of Man goeth up to Jerusalem, and he shall be mocked and spit upon, and shall be crucified, and rise again the third day." Therefore Jesus knew that it was crucifixion which was required of him, when the moment came for him to submit -- for, mind you, it was his own voluntary submission so far as man was concerned; but those who are misleading the brethren do not distinguish between God and man in the case. Jesus meant to say that although sinners would destroy him, it would not be the triumph of sinners' violence, but a submission required of him by the Father. In the garden of Gethsemane, when the hour had come, he said, "If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, nevertheless not my will, but THINE be done." In this connection we can understand what Paul means by saying that he was obedient unto death, even the death of the cross, which implies that he was commanded unto the death of the cross; for how can a man be obedient unto that which is not commanded?"

Lets put this into modern terms. Lets say that the government has decided to condemn murder, the same way that God elected to condemn sin. The government elected to crucify murderers, to show that it condemns murder, and the government makes it a condition of citizenship that all must recognize that the government is right and just to condemn murder. And to publicly make this point, the government takes you, and elects to crucify you to symbolically show what is due to murderers, that all the people in the nation may look on your crucifixion and recognize the rightness and justness of the government.

Would you say that your crucifixion as a symbol of what was due murderers was a right and just thing for the government to do to you? Would any of the people in the nation see it that way? Wouldn’t you rather be screaming, "but I never murdered anybody?" Wouldn’t the people be in uproar over such a plan, to crucify one so unrighteously and so unjustly condemned? And if you were willing to submit to such a plan, it would say a lot about your own condemnation of murder, but what would it say about the government who exacted this of you?

So we find with all the symbolical and substitutionary doctrines of salvation. They all make Jesus out to be very loving for going through this, but they all make God out to be very wrong, and in some cases, vengeful, to require this. Some think to honor Jesus, denying his participation in our sin nature. Still others think to honor Jesus, admitting a nature like ours, but deny the true sinfulness of the nature. But in the end, by elevating Jesus to a position of complete and total sinlessness--a body absent of all sin, and therefore in no need to be purged from sin by his own sacrifice--they all make it appear that God has acted in a most unjust and unrighteous manner, requiring the sacrificial death of one in no need of, nor related to that death. Yet the exhibition of the Rightness and Justness of God is the only basis in the entire Scriptures given for the remission of sin.

"The wages of sin is death," Paul wrote. In order for Jesus to die, and exhibit God as Righteous and Just in requiring this death of Jesus, he himself must in some manner have born sin, that the "wages" might be righteously and justly imposed. As he was personally sinless in all his actions, the only way this could be accomplished was in his being made sin for us, in his bearing our sinful body, and nailing it to the tree.

When we see Jesus on the cross, required by God to submit to this sacrificial death, we see sin destroyed at its very root and core. Jesus bore the law of sin and death, inherited from Adam in his body. It was a physical law established in his body by the sentence in the Garden that was defiling his body, and it needed to be destroyed in himself so that he could attain life everlasting first, and then open the door to everlasting life for us. When Jesus voluntarily submitted to the command of God and went up on that cross, he destroyed the body of sin and death. He "murdered" the devil, the Diabolos as Paul says in Heb. 2:14, in his body. He killed it there on that cross, exhibiting to the whole world that this is how Adamically condemned human nature must be treated in harmony with the Righteousness of God. It cannot save you, even if you live your live sinless. It will kill you, no matter what. It will never cease to tempt you, to try and cause you to sin and fail. It is relentless in its evil. Therefore, it is only fit for destruction.

This is the principle we must understand, if we are to have our sins forgiven. This is the exhibition of the Justness and Righteousness of God that is the very foundation of the forgiveness of sins that are past.

The Blood of Christ by bro. Robert Roberts "It was a spiritual necessity that he should partake of our nature. It is expressly said that he did, and John says that any man who denies it, as many did in his day and many have done since, denies the truth and is indeed anti-Christ. He is strong in maintaining that Jesus came in the flesh, that is, the flesh of the children, the flesh of David—flesh mortal because of sin. Why does he take this strong ground? Because the denial of it cuts at the root of God’s arrangement of wisdom and righteousness. It destroys the very principle that made it impossible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sin. The object was that God’s righteousness might have full play in advancing to our salvation. Christ could not righteously die if death had no dominion over him, and it could not have this dominion except through Adam, through Abraham, David, and his mother, for he had no sin of his own: it was the sin of others that was on him. It was his mission to take this away: how could he do this if it were not on him? "The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all", a figure of speech, because God proposed to forgive us all for Christ’s sake. Still, in this very real sense, our sins are considered as being laid on him, and the beginning was made by making him of the same death-inheriting nature from Eden. The whole process was conducted in harmony with God’s plan of righteousness in every item. The plan required that the sufferer while himself in the channel of death so far as nature was concerned, should himself not be a sinner, that he should be the Lamb of God, without spot, undefiled. Such an one could only be provided by what God did. God went out of His way to provide such a man. The man produced through Mary, by the Spirit of God, combined the two essential qualifications for a sacrifice; he was the very nature condemned in Eden, and therefore wrong was not done when he was impaled upon the cross. "It pleased the Lord to bruise him." Would it please the Lord to do iniquity? Nay. Therefore, it was right. But how could it be right unless he were the very condemned stock?"

How then, did God accomplish this? The first step was his birth. God sent Jesus, first to be born the son of Adam (Luke 3:38,) in the same condemned body inherited by all of mankind.

Sin could not have been condemned in the flesh of Jesus had it not existed there. As Jesus lived his life completely sinless, sin was not there in a moral sense, that is, as something he was personally guilty of, but sin was there as in the sense of the law of sin and death, that is, as the physical consequences of the sentence given to Adam in the garden. Sin was there as something physical in his body, that had to be fought against every waking hour of his life. The flesh is the root of sin, the source of sin. It is the fountain from which transgression springs. Therefore God in the Bible gives the name "sin" to this flesh, calling it sinful flesh, or flesh full of sin. And God specifically says of Jesus:

Being made sin for us, and bearing our sins in his body was not a moral crime. It was a physical disability. That we all, including Jesus, are born under this sentence is our misfortune, not our crime. But it is a reality, none the less. And it is this reality that made it right and just for God to require Jesus to die the death he died on the cross. And when Jesus voluntarily submitted to the command of God, he was agreeing with God, that the body he bore as a seed of Adam, needed to be destroyed.

Aaron and Christ by bro. John Thomas "But to return. Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh (where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross Rom. 8:31), came to John as the "Ram of Consecration," that his inwards and his body might be washed according to the Law (Exodus 29).

But these representations of the Law and the Prophets could not have found their antitype in Jesus if in the days of his flesh he had possessed a holier or purer nature than those for whom he was bruised in the heel. His character was spotless. But, as being the Seed of the Woman of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job 15:4), and the Seed of Abraham, which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite, his nature was flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), which Paul styles "SINFUL FLESH," or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal, and called "sin" because this property of flesh became its law as the consequence of transgression -

"God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God IN him" (2 Cor. 5:21).

Jesus was a man, but not a mere man. He was specially provided by God. He was God manifested (exhibited) in flesh. He was perfectly made to do what human nature without God’s help could not do, which was exhibit the righteousness and justness of God in the condemnation of sin in it’s flesh. God provided us with Jesus. God created him exactly as he had to be. God strengthened him through his many incredibly difficult trials. In the end, God condemned sin in the flesh. The whole plan of salvation was of God making the utterances of Mary paramount: "God our Saviour!"

The veil of the Temple represented the flesh of Jesus, and tells us much about his life. It was this veil that was torn when Jesus was crucified, thus showing that the way to the Holy of Holies was now made possible through Jesus. We learn that at Jesus’ crucifixion the veil was torn, showing the way to the Holiest of Holies was now opened:

1. This veil was constructed of four colors. It was white fine twined linen. This represented the moral perfection of Jesus. It taught us that Jesus would always be able to resist sin. It taught us that he would accomplish a perfect life, and give it as an offering for sin. This was the same testimony of the lamb without spot or blemish.

The perfect sinless life was an essential aspect in his sacrifice. Adamic Nature could have been condemned in any body, as every body descended from Adam bears it, but the exhibition of God’s righteousness would be blurred in any other than a perfectly sinless man. Had Jesus had sins of his own, then he would have been on the cross in his own right, and we could not clearly see the teaching that God was exhibiting–that cursed Adamic Nature itself–is sinful and the root of all sin–and therefore must be destroyed.

Further, Jesus had to be sinless that resurrection should follow. The grave had no claim on Jesus, because he himself committed no sin. When he died unto sin once, the Adamic curse accomplished all that it could do. It killed him. But with the curse now accomplished and remove through his sacrifice, there was no more curse in Jesus (though it obviously remains in us) and so the grave could not hold him.

2. The veil was constructed with blue, representing the words of God. The Jews were to keep a fringe of blue on the outer edges of their garments, that every time they took a step or lifted their hand, the word of God would be a reminder to them to direct their paths and actions.

It was the word of God by which Jesus would direct his steps. "By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many" was the prophet Isaiah’s testimony of Jesus. Jesus was given such knowledge by God that he always knew when sin was attacking, and the correct testimony as to how to correctly deal with it.

The blue indicated the hand of God in all Jesus’ works. Jesus was not a mere man, but rather God manifested in flesh. The works that he did, therefore, were not the works of a man, but the works God intended him to do, to exhibit the principles and characteristics of God.

3. The veil was constructed with purple, showing his high calling. He was called to be a King and a Priest for a people, after the order of Melchizedec.

It was necessary that Jesus should be a priest, that he could make the one great offering for sins. His offering was himself. He offered his life without spot to God, and slew the evil in his flesh in the process.

In order to be a priest, the priest had to be taken from among man. This shows the need that Jesus had to be a wearer of our condemned nature. The value of a priest as a mediator, is that he understood exactly the trials and temptations we go through. Nearly every false view of the sacrifice obscures this point.

In Jesus’ qualification to be a priest, Paul writes that a priest much be compassed with the infirmity of those he ministers to, and by reason hereof (by reason of these infirmities) he must offer for himself, and for the sins of the people. I was once told by a "Christadelphian" who had departed from the true faith that the High Priest had to offer for himself that he might become sinless, and then in a position of Christ to offer for the people. But this is not Paul’s argument. Paul says that the priest must offer for himself because of his "infirmities." Did Jesus bear our infirmities? Paul is clear that he did.

The destiny of Christ is to rule on earth, and be a priest on earth in a Temple to be established in Jerusalem.

Yet even in this role of immortal ruler of the whole earth, we see a remembrance made every year of this great priest’s own involvement in his sacrifice.

4. And finally, the veil was constructed with scarlet or red representing the nature he was to contend with his entire life, and bear away in his death. It was sin’s nature. Sin’s flesh. And it was a constant struggle for him to endure this, and keep it at bay his entire life.

A new theory this past year said that Christ was born under the dominion of death, but not under the dominion of sin. To suggest otherwise, says the new theory, implies that Christ was controlled by, and directed by King Sin. We do not know why such an implication is implicit. A dominion is a controlled land. The "land" controlled by King Sin is Sin’s flesh. The land (flesh) Jesus lived in was Sin’s kingdom. Jesus was the rebel to that kingdom. He rebelled against King Sin, by fighting him, and resisting him till death. But he lived in that kingdom, and was put to death in and by that kingdom.

We can see how being a rebel in Sin’s kingdom worked on him, and cause him constant weariness and anguish in his life as prophesied of him in the Psalms. The man speaking in Psalms 40 is said by the apostle Paul to be Jesus, in Heb. 10:7. This man says:

His iniquities took hold of him, in that at every turn he was tempted by the temptations of Sin’s kingdom. To live a perfect life under such a continual attack was a monumental task. He felt the terrible weight from the pressure of this challenge: to live a life sinlessly in sin’s flesh. And at times that challenge was so difficult, and the temptations so great that he could not look up and his heart failed him. And so at times like these, he fervently sought God’s strength and guidance who took him through these difficult times.

Paul knew that in him, that is, in his flesh, dwelt no good thing. Why? Because Paul was a sinner? No, that is not his explanation. It was because he had a "will." "For to will is present with me" says Paul. That "will" which dwells in the flesh is always contrary to the will of God, and must be controlled by the word of God to stop it.

Jesus did have his own will, the same as all of us do, and he had to fight against it with all his strength and might, even to the end of his life. We see this again in the garden, shortly before his great sacrifice:

Jesus lived with the will common to mankind. The will Paul says, came from the law of sin, dwelling in his flesh. This law was the same law inflamed in Adam and Eve and sentenced to remain fixed in that nature to them, and all their descendants of which Jesus is Chief. All the rest of us have yielded to this will, but Jesus gained the victory over it. It was his victory over this will that made his sacrifice possible. Through his victory, he demonstrated God’s righteousness in condemning this evil nature, and by so doing, destroyed the curse and made it impossible that the grave could hold him.

Christadelphian, 1899, p 83: The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin and Death by bro. Robert Roberts: "...Again, in Rom. viii.3, we are informed that ‘what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God (hath done) in sending forth his son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for (or on account) of sin, condemned sin in the flesh.’ The word ‘likeness,’in this statement is taken hold of by some to suggest that Christ was not the real nature of Adam, but a different nature, bearing a mere resemblance to it. The answer to this is that in testimony quoted further on we are informed it was ‘the same,’ a fact irresistibly apparent on the face of his origin; secondly, the word ‘likeness’ will bear the sense of generic identity.–(See Gen. v. 3.) Paul’s statement necessitates this view in the present case, for it must be evident that sin could not be ‘condemned in the flesh’ if the flesh under the dominion of sin was not the subject of operation..."

In order to understand the principles of Jesus’ sacrifice, we must understand the terms involved in the sacrifice. Too often, we see people trying to define these things with the meanings that have become popular in the churches, instead of the meanings derived from the Bible, and this has led to a corruption of beliefs among Christadelphians.

The principles of atonement are given to us clearly in the Law. There God told us:

The flesh is sustained by the blood. Blood poured out upon the altar was to make an atonement to God. The Churches idea of atonement is to appease, or satisfy. But this is very wrong. God is not appeased by the death of Christ. God is exhibited as righteousness in that death, which is very different than appeasement.

Atonement can best be understood just by breaking up the word. At-One-Ment is the true idea in atonement. We are making an effort to become at one with God. Through sin in the garden, man ceased to be at one with God, and so needed a covering from the presence of God. Jesus’ sacrificial death is that covering that allows us to be at one with Him, again.

In the symbol of sacrifice, the life that is in the blood is poured out upon the altar, symbolizing death. The statement made in the symbol of sacrifice is that sin needs to be destroyed. And when we make this statement, in agreement with God’s righteousness and justness; then God is willing to forgive us our trespasses.

The Law of Moses: The Consecration of Aaron and His Sons by bro. Robert Roberts "For this view of blood-shedding we are indebted to the explanation vouchsafed in the law, as to the requirement of blood in sacrifice. This explanation is as follows: "The life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul" (Lev. 17:11). The pouring out of the blood was therefore the pouring out of the life—therefore the infliction of death: and therefore an illustration of what was due to sin, and an acknowledgment on the part of the offerer that it was so. But being the blood of an animal which had nothing to do with sin, it was only a typical illustration or declaration of God’s righteousness in the case. It was not a condemnation of sin in its own flesh, but a mere shadow which God was pleased to establish in Israel’s midst, in educational preparation for the actual condemnation which was to be carried out in His own Son, in whom, "sent forth in the likeness of sinful flesh" for (as an offering for) sin, He "condemned sin in the flesh."

When a man came to offer a sacrifice, he chose the most perfect animal from his herd. This animal was to represent Christ, the true lamb slain from the foundation of the world. In taking this animal from the herd, it was made clear that the true sacrifice would be one from among the people. He would be one of us. It was to be without blemish and without spot. The outward perfection of the animal symbolized the moral perfection of Jesus. The lamb of God would therefore be one of the people, but a perfect one.

The man offering sacrifice would then place his hands upon the head of the sacrifice, and confess over it all his sins, placing them (his sins) upon the head of the sacrifice. Then he would slay the sacrifice. In doing so, he was recognizing that his sins were worthy of death, and also that one would come who would die for his sins.

The true meaning of sacrifice is "to slay." The common understanding of the churches is to "give up something." And while the idea of offering is included in the meaning, the principle meaning is to slay, or slaughter. The churches focus on the man "giving up" or sacrificing one of his best animals as a gift to appease God. Much could be said about how their own greed confuses their view of sacrifice. But the whole picture is marred by this thinking. In sacrifice, the focus is not the man giving up something of value to him, but rather, the focus is his slaying his sin, demonstrating his agreement that man is not righteous because of sin, but God is righteous in requiring the destruction of sin.

Redeeming the Race by bro. G. V. Growcott "Its current, common meaning (the meaning of sacrifice) is "the giving up or forgoing of something for the sake of something better." Certainly this principle is involved in scriptural sacrifice. It is the basic principle of choosing the truly beneficial good, and eschewing the pleasant (or seemingly pleasant) evil. But this is certainly not the whole picture of scriptural "sacrifice," or even the heart and core of the picture.

In the Scriptures (and here is where we must really get our definitions), there are two conceptions in the terms used to describe what comes under the heading of what we commonly call "sacrifice." They are: 1) to slay, and 2) to offer.

A glance at Young's, pages 829-30, will reveal that, in the overwhelming number of cases, the words in the original (both O.T. and N.T.) translated "sacrifice" mean "a slaughter": zebach in the Hebrew, and thurion in the Greek. Let us bear this in mind: it is fundamental. Scriptural "sacrifice" is a putting to death.

And a study of pages 710-11 of Young's will illustrate the other aspect: offering up to God, causing to ascend, bringing near to God. (All under "offer," etc.).

We could say that Christ's life was an offering, and his death was a sacrifice. And that would be true. But actually they are a one and indivisible sacrificial offering. His whole life was a putting to death: his death was the supreme offering.

When the animal was slain in sacrifice, the sin born by the animal was slaughtered. It was destroyed. It was repudiated. The reality behind these symbols was Jesus. He was not another symbol of the destruction of sin, but the actual slaughtering of it. He did in reality, what the symbolism of the law only prophesied. He bore sin in his body, in the sense of the law of sin and death, and he took that body to the cross, slaughtering it there, and offering it’s destruction as a sweet smelling savor unto the Lord.

When he accomplished this, then God’s righteousness and justness was exhibited to all mankind that this is how condemned human nature–the source of all sin and death in the world--must be treated in harmony with the righteousness of God (the source of all righteousness and life in the world): It is fit only for destruction. And based upon this great testimony, God purified Jesus from the sentence of death. He himself was redeemed from the sentence of death through the principles he exhibited on the cross. Then, with the sentence of death nullified, and having no sins of his own, the grave could not hold him and he was resurrected to life again.

It is in this sense that we can understand Paul’s writing to the Hebrews:

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.

Coming under the condemnation of the law of sin and death, it was necessary that Jesus himself was included in his sacrifice which he made, for the redemption of all mankind from the law of sin and death. This necessity is stated repeatedly in the Scriptures.

Heb 5:1-3 For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.

Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.

Heb 9:23 It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

The necessity of Jesus coming under the purifying characteristics of his own sacrifice is apparent when we understand that the purpose of it all is to declare God’s righteousness. If Jesus was under no necessity himself of being cleansed by his sacrifice, then it would not be right for Jesus to be there, and God’s righteousness could not be exhibited in having required this. Rather the inverse would be true.

But when we say Jesus was himself saved by his own sacrifice, we do not speak to his motive. His motive was entirely in obedience to God, and then "for us," This is the all encompassing scope of his sacrifice.

Sin and death are so intimately related that they cannot reasonably be separated. Paul shows the closeness of the two in writing to the Romans: "The wages of sin is death..." (Rom. 6:23). And he then followed that with "The law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death."

Is there a law of sin, and a law of death? No, it is all one cause and effect relationship. The existence of death proves the existence of sin, and vice versa. They are so entwined that it is impossible to separate them. Such would be the equivalent of trying to separate sin, in the sense of transgression (its moral aspect,) from sin, in the sense of the nature which causes and is the root of all sin (its physical aspect.) The entire law of sin AND death came by transgression, and the entire law of sin AND death are removed from us based upon Christ’s sacrifice.

When we say, that the law of sin and death is removed by sacrifice, we must be careful not to imply or intend some sort of chemical reaction in these things. We cannot mean that the sacrifice of animals, or even the sacrifice of Christ had some magical power to purify a body from sin. It is the principles exhibited in these acts and our conformance to those principles which give sacrifice its power, not the sacrifice itself. And the cleansing or purifying from sin and death is not an instantaneous result of the sacrifice, but rather God’s hand ultimately saving us based upon the principles exhibited and agreed to in the sacrifice.

Because he was sinless, the grave could not hold him. He died unto sin once, but in so doing, he bore away the curse of Adam and the curse of the law. When Jesus was returned to life following three days in the tomb, he came forth from the earth, an earthy body, but one in which, for all intents and purposes in the Divine plan, it was freed from the law of sin and death.

The only thing the Jesus-Altar, Jesus-Mercy Seat, and Jesus-Holy of Holies needed to be purified from was the sin he was made to be, in being born of our condemned nature. This was the sentence of death, placed upon Adam and his descendents. This is what Jesus was purified from "after the veil of his flesh was rent, and before he was resurrected on the dawn of the third day."

A "Christadelphian" who has departed from our foundation, once tried to make the point to me that if the purpose of Christ’s death was to purify him from sinful nature, then the sacrifice failed, because Jesus came out of the grave with the same sinful body that he went into the grave with. This is looking at the sacrifice too chemically, and without seeing the Divine Hand in all these things.

First, sacrifice doesn’t clean things like soap and water cleans hands. God does the cleansing through our recognition of His principles, in His own time. The act itself has no power. The entire force and power of sacrifice lies in the value God places upon the principles exhibited in this great act, and our acceptance of them. The sacrifice does cleanse us. But this is merely a figure of speech meaning God cleanses us, based upon our acceptance of the principles demonstrated in sacrifice, in accordance with His plan, and on His schedule.

Second, it is not the body of inflamed sin and death that was considered defiled. It was the body of inflamed sin and death, sentenced to death that was considered defiled. The sentence destined the man to die. The sentence was that sin and death would be a law in our bodies, and would not be removed. But when Christ abrogated that law by his sacrificial death, and then rose from the dead, that sentence or destiny was no longer a fact in him. He had died to destroy that nature. He had abrogated that destiny. When he came from the grave, he came forth with the same body that went into the grave, an earthy, unclean, mortal body, but he did not come forth with the same destiny. The potential for sin and death were still in his body, as they were in Adam’s in the garden, but it was no longer a predestined law that he would die, and in fact he did not die. Hence, he was cleansed from the condemnation inherited through Adam by his own sacrifice, and that condemnation was over before he was resurrected to life on the third day.

The destiny he received from Adam being abrogated through his sacrifice, and having no sins of his own, Jesus "ascended" to his Father, meaning he was then made "clean" or immortal by God. He became the same nature as God, a divine incorruptible, and immortal being.

There is nothing at all inconsistent with saying that Jesus was cleansed by the blood of his own sacrifice in the eyes of God, but that the potential for sin and death remained in him when he rose from the dead, and that this too, was swallowed up in the victory of the change to immortality. Explaining this, bro. Roberts wrote that a court may declare a man free from the condemnation of prison, but freedom is not actually attained until the necessary papers are filed with the court, and then filed with the prison, and finally the man is brought forward, and then released. In like manner, Christ was freed from sin and death after he died, and before he rose; though the effects of Adam’s sin may, or may not, (who can know?) have remained till God actually granted him life eternal.

So whether Jesus did or did not literally come out of the grave still physically subject to sin and death is altogether a moot point. The sentence of death was cancelled in him from God’s point of view based upon his great sacrifice, which is the only point of view that matters. What the literal bare condition of the body was, (beyond the Apostle Paul’s testimony that it was earthy, corruptible and mortal) is not relevant.

Jesus then, came out of the grave with a body that was earthy, corruptible, and mortal. We know this from the description of the body prior to its immortalization. The apostle Paul wrote of the second Adam, coming forth to be immortalized:

Christ’s resurrected body was still earthy and unclean, in that the "clean" state in the sight of God is immortality. In what sense can it be said to be unclean? It was Mosaically unclean as Jesus would not allow Mary, who was still under the law to touch him, he having just come from the grave which was Mosaically defiling. It was unclean in God’s sight, in the same sense that Job uttered:

The antitypical "clean" condition is "immortality," and Christ clearly was not immortal when he rose from the dead. He had not yet "ascended" to his Father.

Eureka III: The Thieflike Advent by bro. John Thomas "586: 'They (the raised dead and the responsible living) are intellectually, morally and materially alike . . the grave is unclean and defiling . . the body (of Christ) was unclean materially and Mosaically . . would an unclean body made yet more unclean by becoming a corpse . . become clean by being put into an unclean place?'

"587 'Passing thru the grave cleanses no one. They who emerge thence come forth with the same nature they carried into it . . 'Touch me not'?: it was defiling for the Jews to touch a thing declared to be unclean by the Law . . The Law . . concentered in the things pertaining to Christ's body. The interdict forbidding it to be touched was indicative of its not then having been changed into spirit.

"588 'I am an earthy, or natural, body, just come forth from the unclean place; and have not yet been 'made perfect', 'justified by the spirit,'or 'made a quickening spirit' . . That which constitutes me earthy and mortal is not yet 'swallowed up of life.'

"589 'Such was the model . . illustrative of the manner in which all of his brethren will experimentally pass from the humiliation of death to the exaltation of eternal life and glory. They, as he, come forth from the unclean house of death earthy, and therefore, unclean bodies." (End of Eureka quote).

This explanation by Paul is the condition of the resurrected body. It is corruptible and mortal. It is of the earth, earthy. But was this not also the condition of the body before the sentence was placed on it? Jesus came forth from the grave, a tomb in the earth. Adam was formed of the same earth. Jesus came forth corruptible, and mortal and unclean. Adam also was formed corruptible and mortal (as carefully defined previously, admitting the consequent mortality of Adam without admitting death as a destiny) and unclean (not immortal) in God’s sight.

As stated when discussing the sentence of death, the sentence did not change the substance of the earthy body. The change had taken place when the man and woman sinned. The sentence changed man’s destiny. When Jesus died unto sin, he died to abrogate...to cancel the destiny of the body, to cancel the law of condemnation that had been placed on him in the garden. This being cancelled in himself in God’s eyes "after the veil of his flesh was rent and before he was resurrected to life on the third day," he came forth again to mortal, corruptible life: the same life he had just laid down. And being personally sinless, his probation completed and successful; he was now where Adam could have been had he resisted sin: in position to eat of the tree of lives, and live forever. Hence the Christadelphian Statement of Faith reads:

At our resurrection, there will be three classes of individuals, all indistinguishable from each other, in that all are bearing earthly, corruptible, and in consequent mortal bodies. All will be bearing the identical earthy body, but they will be very much different in the eyes of God as to destiny. The call to resurrection will include every man and woman whom God called to be His servant, whether they were obedient to the call or not.

Much has been written in some Christadelphian circles about a person needing the condemnation from Adam removed before they can be resurrected from the grave to judgment. These argue that if a man refuses baptism, he will not face the judgment seat of Christ. This again, represents the "chemical reaction" type of argument that leads to error.

The word "condemnation" in the above verse is "krisis" and it means the judgment, or decision. Judgment is dependent upon the "light" that came into the world, not by whether or not a man obeyed the light. The chemical reaction views (no removal of Adamic Condemnation, no coming from the grave) lead to absurd positions. It suggests that a man, in order to be punished, must first try to be obedient, but a man which is openly disobedient and rebellious can flaunt God with impunity. Realizing that the entire purpose of God’s plan of salvation is to exhibit God’s righteousness, those who hold these positions again make God unrighteous, bringing punishment to those who try to be righteous, while ignoring the openly rebellious and disobedient.

The call of God brings "light" and responsibility to the judgment seat of Christ. The first act of responsibility after coming to a knowledge of the things involved in that call is baptism into the death and resurrection of Jesus, that is, into those principles he demonstrated in his sacrifice. In our baptism, we symbolically destroy the old man of the flesh, sin’s flesh, that we might rise from the waters of baptism a new man, led by the teachings of the Spirit. As we said before, baptism does not destroy Adamic Condemnation, but no one who has refused baptism will be freed from it. The men who refuse this calling, will come forth to judgment with the condemnation they inherited from Adam still in place, and their Adamic destiny is still assured. "From dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return."

The second and third group of men are those who obeyed the commands of God, were baptized for the remission of sins through the forbearance of God, and therefore will be freed from the condemnation inherited from Adam by Jesus’ sacrificial death, when they are called to judgement. Their baptism did not literally free them from Adamic condemnation. Men who are baptized still die. Baptism is a symbolic expression of our desire to have the sentence of death removed in ourselves, and our recognition that God has accomplished the path for this through Christ. But while baptism does not free us from Adamic condemnation, no man who has refused to identify himself with the principles exhibited in baptism will be so freed at judgment.

For all intents and purposes, in any practical consideration of these things: the effect of Adamic Condemnation for those in Christ ends with our call to judgment. There is no more struggling with sin. There is no more a fear of death from Adam. The parable of the ten virgins shows this clearly. When the bridegroom appears, there is no more chance to attain "oil." For most of the saints who have ever lived, this call will be their first recognition of things following their death. For most, the bridegroom appears to them at their resurrection. For some of us, the bridegroom will appear in our lifetime. But either way, when the bridegroom appears, there is no further opportunity to do good, and no more opportunity to do evil. The fight at that time, is over and complete. We will then simply be awaiting judgement.

That is also not to say that a man is purified from Adamic Condemnation by death, (for the grave cleanses nothing;) nor by his call to judgment. But the man who identified with Jesus’ sacrifice by baptism in his life will have had his relationship to Adam’s condemnation ended at his call to judgment in any meaningful or practical way, because of Jesus’ sacrifice. His call to the judgment means that his destiny to die as inherited from Adam, is over. For this reason the apostle Paul wrote:

He that is dead is freed from sin, but not our own sins, for we will be judged for those. We are free from the toil of sin, as the next thing we know following death will be our call to judgement. We are then free from sin as a predestined law that inevitably leads to death as was inherited from Adam.

Speaking of these two classes at the Judgment seat of Christ, bro. Thomas wrote repeatedly that the body at the resurrection comes out of the grave "like Adam, but before he sinned." Bro. Thomas said that this would be true of both the just and unjust, and both will appear at the judgement in bodies like Adam before he sinned.

Anastasis by bro John Thomas: "In the original, the word rendered quickened is zwopoiew , and signifies "to impart life; to make alive." Now, as there are two natures, there are also two sorts of lives. The life of the lower nature is an inferior life, which depends upon the natural laws for its precarious continuance. It partakes of the quality of the nature corruptible, the life is only temporal, or for a time. This is our present life, intermitted at death, and restored when we awake from our sleep in the dust of sheol. We are then as Adam was when he came from the Creator's hand. The life is organic and terminable; and liable to disturbance from any cause operating judicially. In the case of "the unjust," this judicial operation will develop in their flesh certain morbid phenomena, which will ultimate in the cessation of the life, and the entire disorganization of the body; a consummation, styled by Paul in 2 Cor. 2:15-16, perishing, or "death unto death;" and in Gal. 6:8 "of the flesh reaping corruption."

Bro. Thomas is clear that both the just and the unjust come forth with bodies like Adam, but before he sinned. But this idea of "Adam, before he sinned" must be carefully qualified by his other writings to understand exactly what is meant by bro Thomas, to be correct. In many ways, our bodies will not be like Adam before he sinned.

Adam, in his novitiate had no knowledge of sin and death. The resurrected person will have intimate knowledge of both, and will be judged for "our sins." Adam had not the knowledge gained from the tree of good and evil. Those resurrected will have eaten from it all our lives. Adam had not sinned, and did not have sin and death inflamed in his body. We (all but Christ) will have sinned, and therefore will stand before Christ understanding that we have earned the wages of sin, which is death; especially will this be true of the unjust. We will be totally dependent on the mercy of Christ for our salvation. So there is clearly a big difference between the character and health of our resurrected bodies, and that of Adam, before he sinned, or when he came forth from the Creator’s hand.

So in what sense can our bodies be said to be like Adam, before he sinned? Only in one sense. Before he sinned, Adam was not a body destined to die. There was no sentence of death in him, in other words, there was no condemnation such as was sentenced upon Adam, and handed down to us through inheritance. We too, those baptized into Christ, stand at the judgment in the same position as Adam before he sinned, as regards our destiny. Our destiny is not determined. That will be done at our judgement. Some will die, as Adam died following his judgment, when sentenced to death. But some will live, freed from death and forgiven of our sins for Jesus’ sake, both through Jesus’ sacrifice.

So the only way bro. Thomas’ writings can be harmonized, (that the resurrected body is like Adam’s but before he sinned, yet our bodies proceed from the grave as earthy, unclean, corruptible bodies,) is that the sentence which defiled the man and condemned the man to die is considered as removed in God’s eyes, and no longer having any practical existence, just like it had no actual existence in Adam before Adam was judged and condemned. The resurrected man is still an earthy nature. But no longer is he one in which his destiny for death is determined. In this sense, man is then returned to the position of Adam before judgment. It was a position where death was not a destiny, but life or death are both possibilities because of sin and sacrifice.

As bro. Thomas says of the resurrected, "The life is organic and terminable; and liable to disturbance from any cause operating judicially." Our life now is liable to disturbance from any cause whatsoever. Babies die who are not in anyway guilty of transgression, and therefore not liable to any judicial operation. But Adam and Eve in the Garden, though capable of death, would not die apart from a judicial condemnation. So is the resurrected body. Many which come forth will wish to die to escape judgement, but will not be able to do so. Like Adam and Eve, a sentence must be pronounced first, that the condemnation may be clear and final.

Whether or not the sentence is literally removed, or only removed in God’s eyes as having any practical effect on anything, we don’t know, and it doesn’t matter. God’s point of view is all that is important, and from His view, it is removed through Christ’s sacrifice, in that God will swallow up death and grant life for Jesus’ sake, in those who conform to His principles.

For the baptized responsible, both just and unjust, Adam’s judgment is a type of our own. When we are reconstituted from the dust of the earth, we are then as Adam was when he came from the Creator’s hand. After our standing up, the angels cause the history of our lives as recorded in the "Book of Life" to be implanted in our bodies. The "Book of Life" is a book of all that has been recorded of us, good and bad. It is the record of all that we will be accounted to be judged for. By an angle’s touch, it will be implanted in us, and it will remind us of our sins. The knowledge of our sins will do to us the same thing as it did to Adam. It will make us ashamed and painfully aware that WE have sinned, and are in the line of death. We will be more aware of this than we have been at any time before. At this point, we will all be like Adam, after he sinned but before he was judged. Sin and death will be inflamed in our resurrected bodies, not because Adam sinned as today; but because we sinned. But like Adam at this point in his trial, our destiny is not yet determined. The sentence which condemned Adam to death, and which we bore in our life times is not able to condemn us to death. Our own sins may do that.

Next, we will be called to take our turn before the judgement seat of Christ. During this call, it will be revealed as to what has been recorded in the "Lamb’s Book of The Life" also called the "Book of Remembrance." This is the book that only has the names of the saints of God. Sin’s forgiven will not be mentioned. The tears and righteousness of the saints will be exhibited. To the gathered ecclesia of the past 6000 years it will then be revealed as to whether the covering we have sought in our life were fig leaves, like Adam and Eve; or if we have covered ourselves with the skins of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. How lovingly and perfectly we have covered ourselves in the skins of the Lamb will determine whether the sin and death inflamed because of our own sins will again become a permanent law in us and again kill us; or if our sins have been blotted out of the Book of Remembrances for Jesus’ sake, and we will be permitted to eat from the tree of lives and live forever.

Our judgment is typified for us in Daniel chapter 10. The multitudinous Christ-man is first exhibited to Daniel in Daniel 10:5-6. This is Christ as he comes to judge his saints, and ultimately all the earth. It is the same man exhibited to Ezekiel, and to John in the Revelations.

When this man first comes to the earth, Daniel finds that he himself has died. Daniel describes this event, and his death state this way:

The next event is the call of the angel to Daniel to interrupt his deep sleep, and return him to life. The angel’s touch causes the implantation of the things written in "Book of Life" to again become a part of him. This has the effect of causing him to fear and despair, as even the righteous Daniel remembers and realizes that he has sinned, and is in the line of death, apart from the righteous covering for sin that is Jesus. Hence Daniel, and all of us will stand trembling.

Next Daniel learns that his covering is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. His name is recorded in the "Lamb’s Book of the Life," and that what is recorded of him in God’s

"Remembrances" is his righteous works: his sins are not recorded, but are forgiven for Jesus’ sake.

But this pronouncement does not, by itself "strengthen" Daniel. Even after his righteous judgment, he remains of the earth, earthy.

But finally, "at the last trump, the dead in Christ shall be raised incorruptible." And Daniel receives the promise of his immortalization, or his strengthening. Here is the result of the sentence which now destined Daniel. No longer is he under the sentence of death. Now, he, with all the righteous of old together have the sentence to life eternal made real, and he joins with Christ and the rest of his saints to make up the multitudinous Christ-man.

Daniel is now seen as incorporated into the multitudinous Christ-man which is the goal of all of us. Now he can stand in the presence of God, covered from his shame and sin which came through sin.