The Sacrifice of Christ

The Purpose of Christ at His First Advent

Our topic for this lecture is the purpose of Christ at his first advent. But there is one very important point that we should like to make right from the start and that is - Whose purpose is it?

The answer to this question may become confused if we listen to the teachings of men, rather than the teachings of God in our Bibles. For instance, a popular illustration, (frequently used by those involved in the Evangelical movement to explain the purpose of Christ, and what he accomplished) is to have us imagine a man who has sinned, and is condemned to death by a stern king. The man is supposed to represent us, and the king is God. Now, just before the sentence is executed, a great lover of the man, who is supposed to be Jesus, runs forth and says to the king, "No, kill me instead." The King accepts this offer and we go free, while Jesus is punished with all the pain and the penalty that was due to us.

Though this illustration is incorrect for a number of reasons, perhaps its greatest failing is that it completely ignores the work of God in the salvation of man. In this illustration, God appears anxious to destroy man, anxious to completely wipe out the work of His own hands. Practically, it represents Him as exceedingly harsh and unforgiving, but worst of all (as we will show) it represents God as unjust and unrighteous in His dealings with man.

But what does the Bible have to say about God, and the purpose of Christ? What role does the Bible portray God as playing in the work of Jesus? When we ask that question, we find a completely different answer. We find that the Bible represents God as the Source, the Origin, and the Operator in the whole matter of the appearance, life and sacrifice of Jesus.

Now we particularly seek to impress God upon the mind, as the center and focus and the very essence of the matter; God is too much left out of the modern theorizing and definitions of the purpose of Christ. We need to get back to the Scriptural ways of expressing these things, and when we do, we find that throughout all the New Testament, the Father is brought forward as both the Initiator, and also as the Operator in the matter of the purpose of Christ. Before Jesus is born, (but while in Mary's womb) we hear Mary, (the woman chosen by God to bear the Savior of the world) make this declaration:
LUK 1:46-47 "And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour."

From the very start of the life of Jesus, those closely associated with the purpose of God recognized that it was God who was providing for their salvation through Jesus.

The language of the Apostle Paul is similar in recognizing God's hand in the salvation of man. Paul writes:
EPH 1:5 "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,"

And to the Romans Paul says:
ROM 3:23-24 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"
ROM 11:32 "For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all."

To the Corinthians Paul wrote:
2CO 5:18-19 "And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation."

And again to Titus Paul wrote:
Titus 3:4-5 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Titus 2:11 For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men...

The language of Jesus,too, is similar. We find that Jesus, throughout all his discourses, never tried to disconnect himself from his Father. In everything he recognized God as bringing salvation to man through himself. This is the language Jesus used regarding the purpose he was working out.
JOH 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
JOH 7:28 Then cried Jesus in the temple as he taught, saying, Ye both know me, and ye know whence I am: and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not.
JOH 14:9-10 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.
JOH 5:43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
JOH 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him.

From the teachings of the Scriptures then, we can see that the purpose of Christ at his first and second advents, is truly God's purpose. God provided Christ. The race of man truly was doomed to death because of sin. The great King, God our Father, was not interested in destroying the race, as the Evangelical illustration we referred to earlier suggests. God our Savior, as Mary and Paul refer to Him, developed a plan to SAVE the race, not destroy it. Jesus was that plan. He came with a purpose, and the purpose of Christ, begun by God and carried out by God through Jesus, was to bring about salvation for mankind.


Now there were many things that Christ accomplished during his lifetime, many purposes he fulfilled. The central core of every purpose, AND therefore the main purpose that Jesus was and is to accomplish, is to bring salvation; to save man from death. We say then, that the purpose of Christ at his first and second advent was to bring salvation to whomsoever would avail themselves of the healing Christ effected in his life and death. The title of Saviour that the apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gave him as well as his Father, bears this out. Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

The title "Savior" indicates that those for which he came had something from which to be saved. By pinpointing precisely what that is (what we need to be saved from), we can see much more easily exactly what it was that Jesus accomplished in his first advent, and will accomplish more fully at his second advent.

To see this, we need to take our thoughts back to the Garden of Eden. There we see man as God created him. These are the things that God says about the man He had created. First:
GEN 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

And following this, God said about man and his whole creation:
GEN 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."

And then in the second chapter, God explains more about the creation of man. We read there:
GEN 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The man became a "living soul." The Hebrew words translated "living soul" are "nephesh chayiah." Literally, nephesh means a breathing frame, therefore a body. Chayiah means "of life". The expression says man became a body of life.

This is how God created man. He was "very good." There was no curse on the man. He at that time, was not directly related to death. He did not offer sacrifice, because there was no sin. He was not a man of sorrows. All these things happened to the man because he sinned.

Now when he sinned, everything changed. God told Adam after he had sinned:
GEN 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

And there, in those first few chapters of Genesis, we have the reason why man required a Savior. Man sinned, and was condemned to death. Death came to the man by the decree of God. Death, which was not inherent in him in the day of his creation, now became a fact of life with which he and all his descendants would to have to deal. It became a physical law of his being.

Perhaps a comparison of the description of Adam before he sinned, and the way in which men were referred to later will help to illustrate this. We have mentioned that Adam was created "very good." But remember, when one came to Jesus, and addressed him as "good master" Jesus denied the title.
MAR 10:17-18 And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.

And again, as we have pointed out already, the Genesis account records that Adam was created a "nephesh chay" or "body of life." But the Apostle Paul,referring to his body asked this question:
ROM 7:24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? (King James, margin)

What was the difference between Adam in his creation (being "very good" and "a body of life"), and Jesus and Paul who said "there is none good but one, and that is God, and lamented "this body of death"? The answer is, Adam sinned. Adam sinned and brought with his sin death for the entire race.

And so we find that death, with all of its accompanying pain and misery and sorrow, came upon mankind by the disobedience of Adam. This is not just our conclusion drawn from comparison of the Scriptural testimony, but it is also the testimony of the apostles and the New Testament. Consider the following writings of the apostle Paul:
ROM 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned: (King James, margin.)
1CO 15:22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
ROM 5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. 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.

We find therefore, that man became mortal or death-ful, full of death, because of sin; and this quite independent of our own sins. Paul emphasized this:
ROM 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

It may be helpful here to discuss upon what principle did the world sin in Adam? Does this mean that the whole world is individually guilty for Adam's transgression? (This is of course, the Church's doctrine of "Original Sin.") It is for this belief, (that a person can be held guilty of a sin committed by another,) that they baptize babies to wash away the sin they inherited from Adam. It is this same doctrine that has led them to their theories of an immaculate Christ, one who did not bear the sin of Adam. And going one step farther, they have been led to make Mary Immaculate, or "without original sin" to alleviate the difficulty of the Scriptural teaching of the book of Job who asked:
JOB 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

If Jesus was clean, or free from Adam's sin, then Mary must have been so as well. Speaking Scripturally now, what is this so-called Adam's sin, or original sin? It is that which we have been discussing. It is that which we have all inherited from Adam, through birth. It is that which Adam was sentenced to endure. It includes death, sorrow, pain, and suffering. Now when a baby comes out of the water , (or in most churches after it has been sprinkled) is there any change regarding the things to which Adam was sentenced? If the answer is no, (and of course it is,) why persist in a useless tradition?

Well, if we are not all individually guilty of Adam's transgression, what does the apostle mean when he says we have all sinned in Adam? The principle to which the apostle is referring is called in literature, the Federal Principle. We are all sinners before we individually commit a single transgression, in the sense, and only in the sense, that we are all born into a sinful race. For instance, those of us who have been born in the United States of America are called Americans, quite independently of any desire to be so called. Indeed, we do much to distance ourselves from the title of "Americans" preferring citizenship with spiritual Israel. This is called the Federal Principle. We are all termed Americans by birth. People born in the nation to the north of us are called Canadians. Those born in England, English etc.

Upon this same principle, men born the descendants of sinners are called sinners quite independent of ever committing, or being "guilty" of a single transgression. An example of this principle would be Levi, who was reckoned as paying tithes to Melchisedec while in the loins of Abraham, his father.
HEB 7:9-10 And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

Now, getting back to our topic. We see that after Adam's fall from the very good state to his state defiled by sin, that death became a bodily law in his being because of sin. And with death came all the rest of the permanent changes that the nature of Adam experienced upon falling from the very good state. Since this new condition man found himself in was the direct result of sin, and because the new condition was directly opposed to the things of the Spirit, (and therefore sinful) the condition itself is called in the Scriptures, Sin.

The Apostle Paul says:
2CO 1:9 But we had the sentence of death in ourselves, that we should not trust in ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead:
It was a sentence. It was a law. It was a condition that became a part of each and every one of us. And its source was sin. Paul writes:
ROM 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

And of this body, dead because of sin, Paul makes it clear that it is not due to our own sins, but to a law, called the law of sin that existed in our members, that is, in our body:
ROM 7:23-24 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? (KJ Marg.)

So we can see that "Adam's sin" is this law of sin in our members to which Paul alludes. It was a law that made the body a "body of death." It was a law, which was not in man from the beginning, but a law that came to mankind as a result of sin. Adam's personal sin, therefore, is not transmitted to all his posterity, the law of sin was. We are not individually "guilty" of Adam's sin. We are not responsible for Adam's sin in any way. We do however, suffer the consequences of Adam's sin, which is this body of death we all bear. It is from both this body of death, and from our own personal sins, that we all require a Savior according to the plan of God.

(Now when we say that we need a Savior, it must be understood that we need a Savior because it was God's plan that it should be so. These things are not chemical reactions. The reason that the purpose of Christ, and the workings that he did were done, was because God ordained them to be so. God developed a plan of salvation and worked it out through Jesus. Those who will learn that plan, and identify themselves with that plan, become eligible for the beneficial effects worked out by God which is life everlasting.)


We see then, that the human body is now a body of death, not a body of life as in the beginning; and this body of death requires redemption. God made it very obvious to Adam and Eve when they were in the Garden that they, after their sin, were not able to bring about their own salvation.

No doubt all of us are quite familiar with the events in the Garden of Eden, but to go over them again briefly we recall that after they had transgressed, they realized they were naked. As such, they sought out their own covering. They found for themselves fig leaves and they sewed them together. This was a covering of their own device. In effect what they were trying to do was cover their sins. This covering of their own device was not acceptable to God, and He provided them animal skins to cover their nakedness.

It is very significant that the Hebrew word for "atonement" is "kaphar" and it literally means "to cover". It was God's intention from the very beginning to provide for mankind His own covering, His own atonement for the sins of mankind. He did this, originally, by providing the animal skins (which we know from Revelations 13 were lambskins and represented Jesus). In that chapter, John refers to Jesus as the "lamb slain from the foundation of the world." And so he was. He was the covering that God provided, to atone for the sins of the world.

From the very beginning, man has tried to rebel against this notion that God would provide for man a covering for sin. We recall that the first murder in the Bible was committed by Cain, who refused to respect this basic principle. Cain desired to offer an atonement, a covering of his own device. God required an animal, and Cain offered of the fruit of the ground. His sacrifice was not accepted: he became angry and slew his brother, who had offered the righteous, God-accepted sacrifice.

We also recall that the Children of Israel did not keep the law, but always resorted to the idolatry of the nations around them. And what is idolatry, but man setting out to worship the creations of their own hands, rather than to obey the dictates of God? A man takes a stone or wood, and using his own tools and his own skills he creates an image after his own imagination. He worships this image, and in so doing, he is worshipping a plan of salvation of his own device.

This same parallel can be brought into the purpose of Christ. Man decides what he himself thinks should be the proper plan. He invents snappy phrases that cannot be found in the Scripture to give his idea the appearance of being profound. He invents imaginary Christs to hypothesize on a lot of "what ifs" and "maybes". The end result is a different plan, a different Christ than that which God has provided. We must always turn to the law and the testimony for understanding. To get away from this is to invite confusion, and run the risk of creating our own idols, and to worship a plan of salvation which is not to life, but unto death.

And when we turn to the testimony to see what the Bible says concerning this body of sin and its need for redemption, we find Paul writing this:
ROM 8:22-23 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
PHI 3:20-21 For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
1CO 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

So we see it is the testimony of the Scriptures that the body we bear is a body of death. And as a body of death it requires redemption from its corruption, from its vile condition. It needs a redemption that we cannot provide, but one which God has provided. It is our responsibility to discover His plan of salvation and then bring ourselves into harmony with it. There is no other hope for life.

Now among the many dangerous opinions which are voiced concerning the purpose of Christ comes this next idea with which we wish to deal. It is the highly flesh pleasing notion that this body of death is not necessarily an evil thing. We have shown so far that the body which we bear is a body of death. It is a body of pain and sorrow. A body prone to sin. As such, it is styled "sinful flesh" by the apostle Paul in Rom. 8:3. Sinful flesh, which of course means flesh full of sin.

And here we would interject a few words about the term "sinful flesh." Many have pointed out that "sin's flesh" would be a more literal translation. But word for word is not always a perfect translation from language to language. There must always be an attempt to translate expressions according to context.

For instance, in the Spanish language, there is an expression "jugar la casa por la ventana." It's meaning is to give one royal treatment. In English we might say "roll out the red carpet." But if this were translated word for word, it would have no meaning to us at all. Literally it means "to throw the house out the window." There must always be an attempt in faithful translation to accompany the idiom. And in English, "sinful flesh" is the proper translation of the Greek "of flesh of sin". Romans 7, which immediately proceeded this expression, provided the context for the words "sinful flesh." "In me, that is in my flesh dwelleth no good thing." And the following verses in chapter 8 continue the same thought.
ROM 8:6-8 For to be carnally minded (literally: the thinking of the flesh) is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal 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.

"Sinful flesh" then, in English perfectly represents the Spirit's idea, which is of more consequence than any lexicographical word-for-word equivalent.

But man, in his foolishness, reasons that the flesh is not really sinful. "I'm not really such a bad guy. I haven't murdered anyone. I don't steal, I don't lie. I''m really not such a bad fellow. Why, I even have certain good instincts. The desire to feed and cloth my family is a good thing. The desire to go to Church on Sunday is a good thing. And certainly it would be wrong to classify Jesus as having this sinful flesh, for Paul says those in this flesh cannot please God, but Jesus himself testified of God: 'for I do always those things that please him.' (John 8:29)."

What a contrast is this thinking from the teachings of the Bible. The teachings of the Bible is that this flesh, of which we have been writing, this flesh that has resulted from the condemnation of human nature to death because of sin. This flesh all of us bear had "no good of itself." It is totally dependant upon illumination from outside of itself.

Let's think on this for a minute. People, you know, are apt to judge this matter by their own particular experience at the moment when they happen to be thinking about it. This is never a way to judge a divine matter. Our present mental state is the result of many external influences operating for a long time, and are not a clue as to what the flesh would produce if left to itself. When we find a situation where man has been left to himself, such as the Aborigines in Australia, (a situation where the true value of the flesh is exposed because the teachings of the spirit are nonexistent in their lives) we get a clearer picture.

When we look there, we do not see them flocking to the churches on Sunday morning. We do not see them concerned with feeding and clothing their families. In fact, in this peculiar example of the carnal mind, a man may with no notice at all, go on what is called a "walk about" were he leaves everything and goes off on his own into the wilderness for a period of time with no concern whatever for those he has left behind.

This is the true "thinking of the flesh." This is the thinking of the flesh operating apart from the teachings of God. Our current societies are not good examples on the surface, because on the surface they have been shaped by lip-service to divine principles. Looking beneath the lip-service, we find the true character of mankind: and there we learn of the corruption of man whether politician or preacher.

The point illustrated is this: there is nothing in the mind itself except certain blind cravings, desires, and impulses. These are inherent: they are native to the flesh. The knowledge of God is not native to the flesh. The knowledge of how we must proceed to be at one with God is not inherent. So what Paul says is absolutely true. The mind of the flesh is an evil and sinful thing, for its natural impulses resident in the flesh are all in directions opposed to God. As Paul says "the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." (Rom. 7:7) Paul is truly philosophical in going directly to the root of the matter--to the very source of the problem. He does not speak of mere surface appearances, but he speaks of the origin of the evil, the flesh itself, in which by nature dwells no good thing.

This is the consistent testimony of the Scriptures. The flesh (which resulted from the condemnation of human nature to death because of sin) has no good in it of itself, but needs illumination from outside. Here is what the Scriptures have to say about the flesh:
ROM 7:16-24 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from this body of death? (KJ Marg.)
ROM 8:6-13 For the thinking of the flesh is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the thinking of the flesh 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. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
GAL 5:16-21 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Truly then, according to the teachings of the Spirit in the Scriptures, the flesh is a sinful, evil thing.


Now we have so far established that man has fallen out of harmony with God because of sin, (and not necessarily his own sins, though these too are a cause of separation) but Adam's sin from the very beginning. The result of this sin was to change man's nature from a "very good" nature, to the defiled nature we now all inherit and bear, which inevitably ends in death. To be restored to harmony with God, and consequently to be granted eternal life, a plan was needed which would allow God to be merciful and forgive man his sins, while at the same time maintaining that God is righteous and just in all His doings.

As we have seen from the pen of the Apostle Paul, "By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death hath passed upon all men in whom all have sinned." How was this state of things to be remedied? How was sin to be destroyed?

There were at least three ways of mending this problem. One way would have been to exterminate the whole human species. But this would have been a poor solution. It would have been to confess failure:- -that God has set going an arrangement on this planet for His glory and could not make it work. This was impossible. God has said that He has not made the earth in vain: that He formed it to be inhabited by the righteous; and that as truly as He lives, it will yet be filled with His glory!

The second way, would have been what might be called the toleration of sin method--the universal and indiscriminating pity method, by which the wickedness of disobedience of man should have been ignored and mankind allowed to occupy the earth immorally for their own pleasure. But this also was impossible. It would have meant God's abdication, and the handing over of men to eternal misery.

There was a third way--a middle way, and that is the way which has been adopted; namely, to enforce the law against sin, and at the same time leave the door open for mercy to repentant and obedient sinners.

We find that God's method for the return of sinful man to favor required and appointed the putting to death of man's condemned, evil, and sinful nature in a representative man of spotless character (whom God should provide) to declare and uphold His righteousness. This was to be the first condition of restoration. In so doing, God would be exhibited as Just in justifying the unjust, who should believingly approach Him in humility, confession, and through the all important reformation of one's own character to the teachings of the Spirit. And just how such a thing was to be accomplished has been exhibited to us in the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus. In summary, it is the purpose of Christ at his first advent.

The overview of the work of Jesus may be seen in Rom. 3:25-26:
ROM 3:25-26 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The work of Christ, therefore, was to declare the righteousness of God. The word "declare" is a word which means "to exhibit." Christ's life and death and resurrection was a exhibition of the righteousness of God. The things were accomplished in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, were not in violation of God's righteousness, but a perfect exhibition of God's righteousness.

But the question immediately comes, how can this be? How can Jesus, who lived a spotless, perfect life be commanded to die: and have it all demonstrate the righteousness of God? Wouldn't this rather demonstrate or exhibit unrighteousness? The wages of sin is death. If Jesus didn't sin, why did he have to die? Isn't this unfair? Isn't this wrong?

Well it would be wrong if the nature of Christ as explained by Trinitarians was correct. It would be wrong if the nature of Christ was immaculate, or without sin. It would be wrong if Christ suffered a real, actual death because of symbolical, shadowy sin. God would be demanding Christ to die a death he had no relationship to, and no need for. It would be a loving act on the part of Jesus to do this for us, but it would have been wrong for God to have required it of him. And since the purpose of the death of Christ was to exhibit the righteousness and justness of God, and that that should be the basis for the forgiveness of our sins that are past; it is impossible that what God required Jesus to do could in any way be considered wrong.

What made the sacrifice of Christ a right and just thing, on the part of God who required it of him, was that Jesus himself was born with the same nature, sinful flesh, which was common to all men. Paul wrote:
ROM 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh. And that word "likeness" actually means "identicalness". Jesus was sent with the same flesh we all have. And for (or on account of sin) God condemned sin in the flesh.

Now it must be apparent to all that sin could not have been condemned in the flesh of Jesus, had it not existed there. Oh, it could have been symbolically condemned. It could have been another empty ritual like those under the Mosaic law. But the symbols of the Mosaic law had no power to take away sin for the very reason that they were only symbols and shadows. It would be the reality of what Jesus did which would finally take away sins. And what he really did was bear sin in the flesh, that sin might be condemned in his flesh; and taken away through the righteousness and justness of God. It could not actually have been taken away, if it did not actually exist there.

Consider what is wrong with making Christ's sacrifice another symbol in a long line of symbols, in the removing of sin. If sin wasn't actually in the flesh of Jesus, then Christ's sacrifice can be nothing more than another symbol, and in actuality, a travesty of justice.

Consider that the State of Texas condemns murder by sentencing murderers to death. Now suppose that the state took you, (who had never murdered anyone) and they published a statement that they were going to put you to death to exhibit what is right and just to murderers. Then, after you were dead, the state would demand that all citizens look on your death and say; yes, this is what is right and justly due to murderers. What would you say when you learned of the State's plan? Let us suggest that you wouldn't say that the state was right and just, because they wouldn't be. It would be wrong to put such an one to death, because you hadn't murdered anyone.

But if the State took a murderer, and put him to death as an exhibition of what is right and just for murderers, then we could agree that such a treatment of murder is right and just.

Such is the case with Jesus. If Jesus was completely without sin, but died to exhibit what was right and just for THE sinner, then it was a loving act on the part of Jesus, but an unjust requirement on the part of God. But as we have already seen, the nature of man is sinful, or full of sin. Jesus, being the seed of Adam, bore this same sinful nature which is common to all mankind. When he died on the cross, the great exhibition that he made is: "here is how sinful flesh deserves and needs to be treated. It is fit only for destruction." And since he had committed no sin, but always did those things which pleased the Father, there is no confusion in this statement. The focus is totally on the nature of man as needing to be destroyed. When we look on this great sacrifice and recognize the rightness and justness of God in destroying this flesh we all bear (when we acknowledge that it is only fit for destruction) then, on that basis and on that basis alone God is willing to forgive us our trespasses.

This, then, is the purpose of Christ at his first advent. It was to destroy sin in himself, to destroy sin in the flesh. And again, sin could not have been condemned in the flesh of Jesus, had it not existed there.

Going back to Rom. 8:3, we see that in the death of Christ, God was doing something that the law could not do. What was it that the Law could not do? Some have said that the Law could not condemn sin. But the Law condemned sins of weakness in the trespass offering, sins of ignorance in the sin offering, sinful flesh in the burnt offering, and sins of presumption through the death of the guilty one. The Law condemned sin in every way imaginable. It condemned sin so thoroughly that Paul called the Law, "the administration of condemnation" or the Law that condemns.

We notice that what the law could not do, was not due to its own imperfection, but because of the weakness of the flesh. What the law could not do, because of the weakness of the flesh, was to give life. The law could not give life because man, born of sinful flesh could not keep it perfectly. This, Paul says, God remedied by specially preparing and sending Jesus in sinful flesh.


We find among the various erroneous views on the sacrifice of Christ, a complete revulsion at the concept that there was sin in any form in Christ. They often will agree that sin was symbolized by the flesh of Jesus. But they cannot accept that there was actually any sin in Christ. But as we have shown, this idea is unquestionably a necessary condition for sin to have been condemned in his flesh. And beyond that, it is the uniform teaching of the New Testament, Psalms, the Law and the Prophets. We will glean from the vast testimony of Scriptures to show that this is in fact a Scriptural principle.

From the New Testament:
2CO 5:21 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.
HEB 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (THE FIRST TIME HE APPEARED WITH SIN, THE SECOND TIME, WITHOUT SIN.)
David, in the Psalms (which Jesus says were written concerning him) speaks this way of Christ. Now there is a tendency by some to apply some Psalms to David and some to Christ, so we will only use those Psalms which the Apostles by the Holy Spirit applies to Jesus.
Psa. 9:5 O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee. (Applied to Jesus in John 2.)
Psa. 40:12 For innumerable evils have compassed me about: mine iniquities have taken hold upon me, so that I am not able to look up; they are more than the hairs of mine head: therefore my heart faileth me. (Applied to Jesus In Heb. 1)

And concerning the prophets, Jesus said that Isaiah spoke his 6th chapter when he saw the Messiah's glory and spoke of him. But who does Isaiah see?
ISA 6:5-7 Then said I, Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Then flew one of the seraphims unto me, having a live coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the altar: And he laid it upon my mouth, and said, Lo, this hath touched thy lips; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin purged.

And in the Law of Moses we find that nearly all things represent Christ. Speaking of the elements of the Law, the Apostle Paul wrote:
HEB 9:22-23 And 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 [that is the elements of worship, the alter, mercy seat, etc] should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves [that is Christ] with better sacrifices than these.

But again, what was the sin which Paul said God made him to be? What was the iniquity which Jesus lamented in the Psalms to be more than the hairs of his head? And what was his sin from which he needed to be purged or purified, that from which Jesus needed remission?

It was not transgression, his own or Adam's, or anyone else's. The Scripture state that he was tempted as we are, yet without sin. The sin that God made him to be was the sinful nature he inherited by his human descent through Mary. The iniquity he bore was his "flesh full of sin" nature. By bearing this nature, he bore the sins of many, as Peter says:
1PE 2:24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Sins born in a body prove that body to be unclean, and further it properly fit it for the purpose of God though Jesus, the condemnation of sin in the flesh.


Now let's go back to the illustration with which we began this lecture. In this illustration, Jesus runs forward as we are about to be killed for sin by God, and says, "wait, kill me instead." According to this illustration, Jesus himself is not related to death. Jesus, according to the churches and their Trinitarian creed, has no sin in him. He is not of our nature, but rather is consubstantial with the Father. In other words, he is of the same nature as the Father which is immortal spirit nature.

Now when Jesus in this illustration says "Kill me instead", God accepts his offer and takes out all the anger He has towards mankind on Jesus, the substitutionary offering. Jesus, who was not related to sin and/or death, dies for something he was not related to at all. And we asked the question, where is the righteousness of God exhibited in this example? How can killing one who was not related to death be considered in any way as exhibiting God as righteous and just? If anything, we should look at such an example as unrighteous.

If this view of the matter was correct and Jesus died instead of us that we may go free, then we should not die at all, which we do. Further, if Jesus is not related to sin, and wages of sin is death, then it was unjust that he should die. And when we consider that Jesus's death was by God's own appointment, as Jesus himself says it was, then we have God unright in appointing and requiring it.

And make no mistake about it, the death of Christ was by God's own appointment. Let us make this very clear through the testimony of the Scripture, since the fact is frequently contested. The apostles recorded the counsel of God in this matter this way:
ROM 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
ACT 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
ACT 4:27-28 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together, For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.

And to this we have Jesus' own testimony concerning his death:
JOH 10:18 No man taketh it [his life] from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.This commandment have I received of my Father.

So there can be no question that the death of Jesus was by God's own appointment and commandment. And being such, it had to be both right and just. But who can explain the righteousness in putting to death one not subject to death because of sin, one whose nature was not the flesh full of sin nature described by the apostles? We say without fear of contradiction, that no one can.

If Christ's death was just another symbol, just a substitute standing in for sin to demonstrate in a symbolical ritual what was due to sin, then there could be nothing exhibited as right and just as related to God. But we are told that the exhibition of the rightness and justness of God is the only basis in the Scriptures upon which we can have forgiveness of our sins which are past. This leads us to the only logical conclusion that any theory which cannot explain how God is exhibited as right and just in the death of Christ, that theory cannot provide the basis for the forgiveness of sins that are past. And if we have no forgiveness of sins, then we are all still dead in our sins, and of all men most miserable.

This is a perfect example as to why it is so very important that this subject is understood correctly. There is no doubt but that this subject is the single most important subject in Scriptures as affecting salvation. We are all sinners, not only in the sense that we were born the seed of Adam, but also, we are sinners because everyone of us has sinned. We require a savior. We need to approach God in harmony with this prescribed plan. We are not free to dream up a plan of salvation which satisfies ourselves. We must conform our ways to God's ways, to have any hope for salvation. We must identify ourselves with the declaration of God's righteousness which Jesus made in his death and through his blood, if we hope to have forgiveness of our sins which are past.

In seeing God's righteousness in requiring Jesus to die the death which he died, we therefore must see that his death was not a mere martyrdom, but it itself was an essential element in the salvation of mankind. We who are sinners have been reconciled to God as a result of Jesus' death, and by your association with what Jesus accomplished.

The Scriptures are very clear on this point. The apostle Paul writes:
ROM 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
COL 1:21-22 And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

In Jesus' death, he made a declaration of God's righteousness which was to be the basis of the forgiveness of sins. This declaration was an element in the purpose he came to perform. The declaration of God's righteousness that Jesus made when he was hanging upon the cross was this: "This is how sinful flesh, the source of all evil in the world, needs to be treated in harmony with the righteousness of God, the source of all that is good in the world. Sinful flesh is fit only for destruction." This is the statement with which we must all identify. We must constantly crucify the old man, OUR SINFUL FLESH, to identify ourselves with Christ's great sacrifice.


Now, along with it being right for Jesus to be condemned to death because of sin, we also must recognize a justness in God requiring him to submit to the type of death which he died, which was a sacrificial death.

A sacrificial death is a death which exhibits certain principles. Under the Law of Moses, a man brought an animal to the altar and placed his hands upon the head of the animal, confessing his sins; and in symbol, he placed the sins upon the animal. Then the animal was slain to represent the destruction of sin.

This point is often missed in our society because of the meaning sacrifice has taken on. Most would now-a-days understand sacrifice to mean to forfeit, or give away. This is the meaning which has been derived from 1700 years of false understandings concerning the sacrifice of Christ, held by the general Christian world. But it is not at all related to the Scripturally intended meaning of the word. Actually, sacrifice comes from a word meaning "to slaughter". The sacrifice of Christ was a slaughtering of sin in his flesh, just as the animal under the law represented in symbol the slaughtering of sin.

The placing of the sins on the animal is perhaps best seen in the following verse,
LEV 16:21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

Note in the above verse it is all the iniquities and all their transgressions in all their sins which are symbolically placed upon the head of the animal. And this shows what is done through the confession of the individual in sacrifice. The sins are placed on the sacrificial animal.

When the Churches read this, they try to place the individual as the animal. They argue that the animal is from his flock, something in which he had invested much time and money. In killing it he is, therefore, forfeiting something of value, giving up something dear to him: in this way the churches try to blend their idea of sacrifice with the law.

But the animal does not represent the individual, or something owned by the individual that he is giving up. The animal, plain and simply, represents Christ. He is taken from the flock to represent that the Christ would be found among the children of Israel. He was the best of the flock, without spot or blemish to represent his moral perfection. Our sins were laid upon him, representing that our sins would be laid upon Christ in his being born of sinful flesh: and that in his great sacrifice, he would destroy that flesh, and sin with it as pertaining to himself first, and in others who would recognize the rightness and justness of what he had done.

And though the animal does not represent the offerer, the offerer does identify with the sacrificial animal in that he must recognize that what is happening to the animal (and ultimately to Christ) is what is due to him because of his transgressions to which he has just confessed. To have our sins forgiven, we must fully understand we are sinners, and that sin needs to be destroyed. Upon this declaration of God's righteousness and justness, God is willing to forgive us our sins.

There is a further representation in the sacrificial picture. We read:
LEV 17:11 For 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.

The death that God required Jesus to submit to was a blood shedding, sacrificial death. In order for God to be just in requiring this of Jesus, there must have been a sense in which Jesus needed to be purged from sin through this atonement.

What precisely and Scripturally is sin? Paul says that sin is the transgression of the law. Jesus never, ever transgressed the law. This sin is moral, an act opposed to the principles of God, and Jesus never was guilty in any way of any moral defilement. But Paul also says:
ROM 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

It is upon this universal principle that all that is not of faith is sin, that the flesh we bear is called "sin"; for sinful flesh is as antagonistic to faith, as opposed to faith, as anything can be. But this sin is not moral. We had nothing to do to be guilty of it. We are born with it. This is our misfortune, but not our crime.

It is for the purification from this physical sinful flesh that Jesus himself was required by God to submit to a sacrificial death. He had the law of sin in himself from which he needed and required purification; for all sin was to be purified through blood shedding.

We have shown already that Paul, in Rom. 7 speaks of "the law of sin in my members." We have shown that in the next chapter, Paul calls this "sin in the flesh" and "sinful flesh." Some who argue for a pure Christ, one without the flesh full of sin, say that Paul could speak of the law of sin in his members because he was a sinner, but that it would be wrong to apply that to one who did not sin, such as the Christ.

Well, let's go back and examine Paul's statements again. Did Paul say that this law existed in him because he was a sinner? Or did he give some other proof about this law in his members? In the 18th verse Paul says "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not." Now note that carefully. Paul says the reason he knows he has this law of sin in his flesh, is that he has a will. He had a "will" which inspired him to do things contrary to the desires of God. This is what made the flesh so sinful. Did Jesus have such a "will"?

Remember what the Jesus told the Pharisees?
JOH 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Here is Jesus acknowledging that he did have his own will, but he refused to give in to it. He and he alone had the strength, derived from God, to overcome this flesh, though he bore it. He overcame it every day of his life, up to that final day when we see him again fighting this will.
MAT 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

This will that Jesus had to fight, just as we have to fight, proves that Jesus bore the same sinful flesh as we, and that he fought the same law in his members that we all do. This will, as he himself testifies, had desires contrary to the will of the Father, which proves that it was in fact a physical, sinful characteristic, as Paul says it was. Jesus never yielded to it. He was morally perfect in all things. But as it was there with all its desires contrary to the will of the Father, it needed to be removed; and the method ordained by God for its removal was his own blood shedding sacrifice.

This will was not anything moral. It did not make Jesus guilty of sin. Possessing sinful flesh was not sin, that is, it was not morally defiling to him in that he always resisted it and kept it under perfect control his whole life. Still it was there, and, according to the purpose of God, had to be removed through sacrifice.

This will, or sinful flesh, was a necessary characteristic for Christ to have to be able to be our High Priest. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Heberws:
HEB 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus had the feelings of our infirmities. He knows what it is to be tempted beyond anything we have ever experienced. And Paul goes on to explain:
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.

Our Great High Priest Jesus can have compassion on us as we fail, because he himself understood our feelings being compassed with the same infirmity. Observe what it says about this infirmity. "By reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins."

Paul says that the reason the great High Priest had to offer for himself was these "infirmities." By reason, not of sin, but of the infirmity the High Priest Jesus had to offer for sins. Why, if sinful flesh is not sinful? Verse 15 of chapter four had just told us that Jesus had never sinned, but that he did have our infirmity. And now verse three of chapter five tells us that by reason of this infirmity, Jesus had to offer for himself for sins.

But of course, sinful flesh was sinful. That is why these infirmities, this sinful flesh, created such a situation that our Great High Priest had to offer first for his own sins, and then for the people's. And oh, the confusion which has been created in trying to avoid this foundation principle for the forgiveness of sins.


The teachings of the Scriptures is very clear on the point that Jesus offered for his own purging from sin. Paul wrote:
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.

This verse, as it stands, is perfectly clear. The verse says that what the High Priest did daily, (literally day by day meaning on the day of atonement,) in offering first for his own sins and then for the sins of the people, Christ did once. There is no way to get around the fact this verse clearly says that Christ, once, offered first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people.

Because of the clarity of this verse as written, many different efforts to get around what is clearly stated have been derived. Commas are moved, parenthesis added, nearly any change imaginable has been construed to make this verse say something other than what it clearly says. In 1889, an Anglican preacher named Westcott, himself a Trinitarian, wrote an exposition on the Hebrews. In it, he explains all the reasons why the changes to the text which are so desired are not accurate. Some, he points out, are grammatically impossible for reasonable translations. Others ignore the order of the text. Still others are paraphrases and not translations at all. His conclusion is this: "It is of course true that for Himself Christ had no need to offer a sacrifice in any sense. But perhaps it is better to supply the ideal sense of the High-priest's offerings, and so to leave the statement in a general form. Whatever the Aaronic high-priest did in symbol as a sinful man, that Christ did perfectly as a sinless in His humanity for men." ("Epistle to the Hebrews" by Westcott: page 197.)

Westcott could reach this conclusion because he did not believe in the fully inspired Scriptures. He could agree that the only possible translation is the one in the King James. He agreed that the translation which says that Christ had to offer first for his own sins is the correct one. He simply spiritualized it, and went on. So while he could not deny that the text says that Christ offered for himself, he just presumed that since Christ was sinless, the verse had to have a highly spiritual meaning, and ignored the ramifications of such a verse to those who believe in the complete infallibility of the Scriptures.

The ramifications are quite clear. The verse clearly states that Christ offered first for his own sins. What are his own sins? The previous verse had said he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." For what then did he offer? As we have pointed out, he did have something for which to offer: His sinful nature.

In a discussion, once, a man said to us that this verse is "nebulous," and it's wrong to put a meaning on such a verse which contradicts what is otherwise plainly taught in Scriptures. First off, the verse is not nebulous, it is plain. And secondly, this verse does not contradict what is plainly taught in Scriptures. The Scriptures do not teach, plainly or otherwise, that Christ did not offer first for his own sins.

But the Scriptures do teach that Christ did offer for himself. We have already looked at Heb. 5:3 and 7:27. Let's look at the same principle elsewhere. Let's consider Heb. 9:12:
HEB 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

You will notice in the King James Version, the words "for us" are italicized. Words italicized means that they are not in the original, but have been added by the translators to help our reading. As we have already pointed out, word for word is never a good translation from one language to the next. The question is whether or not the translators have done the correct thing in making the addition. In this case, we find that they have actually translated the matter unfaithfully.

The Greek words have a tense that we do not have in English called the "reflexive tense." In this tense, it is shown that one is doing something to oneself. This is the tense that "obtained" is in. (Actually, the word would be more properly translated "found.") The verse would be more accurately translated:
HEB 9:12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption to himself.

Had it been translated this way, there would have been no need for italics at all, because there would have been nothing added to (or taken away from) the original translation. All we would have had is a contradiction to modern Christian thought. We would have a consistent translation with Heb. 5:3 and 7:27: that Christ himself was purified by the blood of his own sacrifice from the sin he bore in his flesh.

And as we proceed through this chapter, we come to Heb. 9:22-23
HEB 9:22-23 And 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; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.
What were the heavenly things themselves which required cleansing with the better sacrifices than the patterns of the things in the heavens, which required the blood of bulls and goats? Well the patterns of the things in the heavens were the things that Paul had just described, "the tabernacle and the vessels of the ministry." Now all these things had to be purified by blood. Why, if blood shedding sacrifice can only be required for moral defilement? Let's look at the examples from whicht Paul is quoting.
LEV 16:14-16 And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the mercy seat eastward; and before the mercy seat shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remaineth among them in the midst of their uncleanness.

Here the patterns, (the vessels of the ministry) are clearly shown to be in need of atonement. Why? How could these inanimate objects sin? Of course they couldn't, but they were reckoned by God as being defiled by sin because of their physical relationship to the children of Israel and all their sins. So the immediate question comes, would not the anti-type of these vessels of the ministry, the heavenly things themselves, that is Christ himself, be also reckoned as physically defiled for his contact with the children of Israel through bearing their same nature? And if physically defiled, does this not explain Paul's statement that he needed to be cleansed through the better sacrifice, his own sacrifice, than the blood of bulls and goats used to cleanse the tabernacle and mercy seat etc. under the law?

So we have seen that the Mosaic Law prophesied through the office of the High Priest that the Great High Priest should offer first for his own sins, and then for the peoples. And the Apostle Paul testified that this is exactly what Jesus did. Ezekiel continues the prophesy into the Kingdom age. The law for the 1000 year reign of Christ will be a memorial law. Where the Mosaic Law prophesied of what Christ would do, the Kingdom Law memorializes what Christ did. And pertaining to our subject, Ezekiel testifies about the Kingdom law:
EZE 45:21-22 In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten. And upon that day shall the prince prepare for himself and for all the people of the land a bullock for a sin offering.

Here is very clear testimony that as a memorial of what the Prince of the Temple, that is Christ, did will be to offer a bullock for a sin offering for himself. This testimony in the Kingdom law is so clear that it has caused some to suggest that Ezekiel's temple is not the temple of the Kingdom Age, but rather the temple built by Nehemiah. To more reasonable people, this by itself, is a testimony to the lengths some will go to avoid the clear teaching of Scriptures. The land included in this temple would be the very land inhabited by Israel's enemies Sanballat and Tobiah. That Nehemiah's Temple could have encompassed the lands of these vicious and vindictive men is absurd.

In conclusion, we pray that it will be apparent to all that the Bible teaches that the purpose of Christ's first advent was to destroy sin in himself, and in those who should believe in what he, through the grace of God, accomplished.

Return to Home