He Who Knew No Sin, Came To Know Sin
The Greek word for “knew” in 2Cor. 5:21 is, ginosko, and is an aorist active participle. It denotes the idea of actively having a deep and intimate knowledge about someone or something; and sometimes in a very deep and relational way. For example, see: Mat. 1:25; 7:23; Luke 1:34 and Rom. 7:7 either in the KJV, ASV, ERV or YLT. With regards to Luke 1:34, the Holman Christian Standard Bible brings out the nuance of this word, when it says: “Mary asked the angel, ‘How can this be, since I have not been intimate with a man?’” In Rom. 7:7, Paul said he had not “known” sin, except through the commandment. Before the cross, Jesus did not “know” of such sin in His person when the commandment came to bear upon Him. So, to “know” no sin here in 2Cor. 5:21 means (as all would agree), that Jesus actively and intimately knew no sin experientially in His person (cp. John. 8:46). But then He was in fact passively and intimately "made sin" experientially in His person, that we might become intimately and experientially in our person the righteousness of God. This is the antithesis between not “knowing” sin on an intimate and personal level, verses being made to know it on an intimate and personal level; and with us not knowing righteousness on an intimate and personal level, verses us now knowing righteousness on an intimate and personal level. To argue otherwise, against the sense and meaning of this word “knowing” here, destroys this antithesis completely, making it only something that is abstract and not on an intimate and personal level. Christ is NOT said to be made objectively an “offering” for sin (as true as this may also be), but made “sin” in and upon His person in opposition to having never before being personally acquainted with it before. This is what the text is implying: Christ didn’t know it, but was made to know it. And the Lord in Isaiah 53:3a says the exact same thing about Christ becoming personally acquainted with the consequences or expressions of our sin. The text literally reads, using the plural form: “He is a man of pains and acquainted with sicknesses” (see also CST, HCSB, Brenton Septuagint Trans., and YLT). Edward Young in his commentary on Isaiah agrees: “The English translation acquainted with sickness is accurate.”[1] And being acquainted with sicknesses here in context is synonymous to being acquainted with sin. Don’t believe me? We’ll get to that in just a minute. But first of all, the word for “acquainted” here in the Hebrew is “yada,” and is akin to the Greek “ginosko” used in 2Cor. 5:21 for knowing something or someone on a deep, intimate, and personal level. Like ginosko, it too is used in Gen. 4:1, 17 and 25 of Adam “knowing” Eve his wife. The Greek Septuagint uses the Greek word eidos in its translation of yada in Isaiah 53:3, which denotes a personal knowledge about something, but ginosko is actually more akin to this Hebrew word yada which takes the idea of “knowing” someone or something on a much deeper level. Regardless, there is no mistaking the significance of the Hebrew word “yada” here, as it relates to “ginosko,” and as denoting the very same idea of thought.
Secondly, the Hebrew plural “choli” for “sicknesses,” though used for physical sickness in the OT, is also used in a handful of other contexts to refer to the vileness or disease of sin. It’s first occurrence is likewise in Isaiah, chapter 1, verse 5. And the Lord again using this word in this manner, says of the people of Israel: “The whole head is sick, the whole heart faint.” (ESV). Just before this in verse 4, the Lord has said: “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, offspring of evildoers, children who deal corruptly! They have forsaken the Lord, they have despised the Holy One of Israel, they are utterly estranged.” (ESV). And then in verse 5 the Lord likens this being “laden with iniquity,” with being “sick,” even to the head. Verse 6, also using this figure of sickness for sin, goes on to say: “From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and raw wounds; they are not pressed out or bound up or softened with oil.” (ESV). Clearly, being “sick” here is likened unto being sick with the disease of sin. The second occurrence of the Lord using this word in this manner, is in Ecc. 6:2. It thus reads: “A man to whom God giveth riches, wealth, and honor, so that he lacketh nothing for his soul of all that he desireth, yet God giveth him not power to eat thereof, but an alien eateth it; this is vanity, and it is an evil disease.” (ASV). There is no need to comment on this, it is self-explanatory. The evil that goes on in the world, as a result of sin, is considered as a “disease” that spreads and corrupts. The third occurrence is in Jer. 6:7, with the Lord again saying with the use of this word: “As a well pours out its water, so she pours out her wickedness. Violence and destruction resound in her; her sickness and wounds are ever before me.” Again, no explanation needs to be given. The Lord is clearly referring to “sickness and wounds” as being akin to wickedness, violence, and destruction—all the affects or consequences and expressions of sin. The Brenton Septuagint Translation translates this as: “Ungodliness and misery shall be heard in her, as continually before her.” The fourth occurrence is also in Jeremiah, which reads: “Woe is me for my hurt! my wound is grievous, but I said, ‘Truly this is my sickness, and I must bear it.’” (10:19; Jubilee Bible 2000). Many commentators view this as a lament of Israel—and maybe so—but I also wonder if it is not the Lord himself now speaking in their place as the Suffering Servant and Federal Head of His people who would bear the expressions or consequences of the sin of His covenant people as a great sickness that needed a remedy. If so, then we have the Lord speaking prophetically the same thing as He has said through His prophet Isaiah in chapter 53:4. The reference in verse 20 to the Lord’s tabernacle (and not the people’s own tents as most claim) as being spoiled and the cords being broken could possibly be an allusion to the tabernacle of Moses, which is also figuratively likened to Jerusalem (or the people of God) in Isaiah 33:20 (cp. also with Isa. 54:2). If not, then it still stands here that the “sickness” (or evil) that Israel is bearing is due to their sin of revolting against the Lord. Again, no explanation is needed as to what this “sickness” is a result of here. The fifth and last occurrence is in Hos. 5:13, which reads: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah his sores, then Ephraim turned to Assyria, and sent to the great king for help. But he is not able to cure you, not able to heal your sores.” In verses 10-12, the Lord had just said that He was going to pour out His wrath upon them like floodwaters, trample them in judgment, and be like a moth and like rot that would consume them; and that Ephraim and Judah would visibly see the sickness and sores of judgment via the invading armies that were the result of their sin against the Lord.
Any good exhaustive commentary on Isaiah notes how this Hebrew word for “sickness” in Isa. 53:3 denotes the sickness or disease of sin, and these verses just mentioned above unequivocally without a doubt substantiate this fact. Edward Young, in his commentary on Isaiah, thus notes here concerning Christ suffering for us: “the picture is not that of whose body is weakened by physical sickness, for the word sickness here stands for sin. Isaiah is using the same figure that he had earlier employed (1:5b, 6).”[2] In Isa. 53:3, Christ is said to be "acquainted" with our sicknesses (or our sins). And just in case anyone should say that Christ didn’t actually "bear" our sins (but only the consequences of them), verses 6, 11 and 12 say that He did. And then verse 4 actually goes on to say that Christ also “bore our sicknesses [or sins] and carried our pains” (see CSB, HCSB, YLT), using the exact same Hebrew words as in verse 3 for “sicknesses” and “pains.” Here in Isaiah, Christ who was never personally "acquainted" with (or knew) our sins (plural), became "acquainted" with our sins because He in fact personally bore them; corresponding to 2Cor. 5:21 where Christ is said to have never personally "known" (or to have been acquainted with) sin (singular), but no doubt came to know our sin because He is also said to have been "made sin" by having personally borne it according to Isa. 53:12; and we will talk more about Christ being "made sin" in part five.
Clearly, Christ himself never became physically sick, and the text literally says in Isaiah 53:4, as Young correctly notes, “The sickness of us he bore,”[3] denoting not necessarily what Christ did for others in healing the sick, but what He himself actually bore in His own person. And Christ visibly demonstrated or signified His bearing the sickness of sin in His body and soul by casting out spirits and healing all manner of sickness and disease in Mat. 8:17 (see also all the incidents before and after this verse). The “signs” (Mark 16:17-18) of healing the physical wounds of others only touched upon the surface of healing the much deeper and spiritual wounds of sin. Not only did Christ physically heal people which for many are the visible consequences of their sin, but He has also spiritually healed people from the deeper wounds of the sin of our old man whom He crucified (Rom. 6:6a), so that the body that visibly manifests that sin might be rendered powerless (Rom. 6:6b). As Young again notes here in Isa. 53:4 with regards to Christ actually bearing our sickness and pain: “This...brings to the fore the idea of substitution.”[4] And I will take it even a step further: it denotes Christ’s identification with us in order to crucify and put an end to both sin and death. “Moreover, as for you, because of our covenant relationship secured with blood, I will release your prisoners from the waterless pit.” (Zech. 9:11; NET Bible). Sin, and the result or consequences of sin which is death, both spiritually and physically, could not hold Christ or His people down. Christ’s righteous blood redeemed us from sin and the power of Sheol—bringing atonement, propitiation, justification, redemption, reconciliation and sanctification.
Now except for Albert Barnes (who I think is wrong), the overwhelming majority of commentators do not believe Matthew was quoting Isaiah as a proof text for physical healing, but only using the quote in Isaiah of Christ healing the deep wounds of sin as indicative of also healing physical sickness which is usually the consequence of sin, whether directly through someone’s own sin, or indirectly through the sins of others, such as what Adam did to all of us as a result of his sin. The context of Isaiah 53 is clearly about Christ bearing our sin, not physical sickness or disease. And even the Septuagint translators understood that much when they translated verse 4 as: “He bears our sins and is pained for us.” And this also agrees with Peter’s interpretation of this verse in 1Pet. 2:24. So Matthew cannot be using this verse in Isaiah contrary to what the text is actually saying, but only using it as a justification for Christ physically healing people. Matthew must have understood that what was occurring in Jesus healing people was all part and parcel (or complimentary) to His atoning work for sin. So, surely Matthew cannot be quoting Isaiah out of context of Christ bearing and removing our sin, but only using it as a pretext for Christ also removing physical ailments. No doubt, the latter flows from the former. Thus, the true sense of the passage is found in the immediate context of Isaiah 53, in the Septuagint translation of Isa. 53:4, and in how Peter interprets this verse for us in his epistle in defense of Christ’s substitutionary atonement for sin. None of this can be expressed any better, than how the IVP New Testament Commentary puts it:
The context in Isaiah 53 suggests that the suffering servant’s death would heal the nation from its sin (Is. 53:4-6, 8-9; compare 1 Pet. 2:22-25), a figurative expression frequent in the Prophets (Mt. 13:15; Is. 6:10; 57:18; Jer. 3:22; 6:14; 8:11; 14:19; Hos. 14:4). But the broader context of Isaiah shows God’s promise for his people’s complete wellness in the era of the kingdom (Is. 29:18; 32:3-4; 35:5-6), suggesting secondary nuances of physical healing in 53:4-5 as well. The servant’s suffering would, after all, restore to Israel all the benefits lost through sin (compare Ex. 15:26; Deut. 27-28). Thus Matthew cites Isaiah 53:4 to demonstrate that Jesus’ mission of healing fulfills the character of the mission of the servant, who at the ultimate cost of his own life would reveal God’s concern for a broken humanity. [5]John Calvin also pretty much speaks for the rest, when he writes under Mat. 8:17:
This prediction has the appearance of being inappropriate, and even of being tortured into a meaning which it does not bear: for Isaiah does not there speak of miracles, but of the death of Christ,— and not of temporal benefits, but of spiritual and eternal grace. Now, what is undoubtedly spoken about the impurities of the soul, Matthew applies to bodily diseases. The solution is not difficult, if the reader will only observe, that the Evangelist states not merely the benefit conferred by Christ on those sick persons, but the purpose for which he healed their diseases. They experienced in their bodies the grace of Christ, but we must look at the design: for it would be idle to confine our view to a transitory advantage, as if the Son of God were a physician of bodies. What then? He gave sight to the blind, in order to show that he is “the light of the world,” (John 8:12.) He restored life to the dead, to prove that he is “the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25.) Similar observations might be made as to those who were lame, or had palsy. Following out this analogy, let us connect those benefits, which Christ bestowed on men in the flesh, with the design which is stated to us by Matthew, that he was sent by the Father, to relieve us from all evils and miseries. [6]Adam Clarke also says here under Mat. 8:17:
The quotation is taken from Isaiah 53:4, where the [Hebrew] verb nasa signifies to bear sin, so as to make atonement for it. And the rabbins understand this place to speak of the sufferings of the Messiah for the sins of Israel; and say that all the diseases, all the griefs, and all the punishments due to Israel shall be borne by him... The text in Isaiah refers properly to the taking away of sin; and this in the evangelist, to the removal of corporeal afflictions: but, as the diseases of the body are the emblems of the sin of the soul, Matthew, referring to the prediction of the prophet, considered the miraculous healing of the body as an emblem of the soul’s salvation by Christ Jesus. [7]And, finally, Bengel also writes:
It behoved that the Physician of the soul should also remove bodily complaints from those who came in His way. In this manner also, therefore, was fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah. Body and soul together form one man: the corrupting principle of both soul and body is one [namely sin]; one and the same aid was given to both by this great Physician, as the case required. [8]Young goes on to note here how that the Hebrew word in verse 4 for “stricken,” Nagu, “has been interpreted by many to refer to smiting with leprosy. In 2 Kings 15:5 we read: ‘And the Lord afflicted the king, and he became leprous.’ Among the Jews there was a tradition that the Messiah should be a leper, and this thought is also expressed in some of the ancient versions. Duhm also maintained the servant was a leper who died from that disease.”[9] Young continues with regards to this Hebrew word for our English “stricken”: “Certainly it does suggest the infliction of a hateful disease... The precise character of the sickness [of Christ] is not mentioned, but we are probably on safe ground in saying that it was a loathsome, disgraceful disease, which resulted from the striking.”[10] It “resulted” from Christ being horrifically cursed of God on the cross for us. No doubt, Christ was stricken with our leprous disease of sin, making Him before God: loathsome and disgraceful—an abhorrent and obnoxious curse. And in verse 4b He is “afflicted” (or put down or made low) by all of this in utter humiliation. Truly, Christ was “a worm,” and no man. If all of us only really knew what our Substitute suffered for us, we would become even all the more grateful than we have ever been before, in understanding what it was that exactly took place in Christ for Him to crucify our old man in Him, and in us. Even in the fact that the Lord mentions in Isa. 53:5 that the Suffering Servant would be pierced through unto death, Young again goes on to say here: “The participle suggests the complete destruction of the person involved”[11] Christ just being physically pierced by the Roman soldier only touches the surface, not even telling the whole story of what really transpired in Christ. Christ’s entire person in spirit, soul and body was pierced through unto death, both physically and spiritually—and all for us so that we could be resurrected unto life both spiritually and physically. This is in fact “The Great Exchange” that many have only vaguely come to understand, not realizing what truly took place in our Vicarious Substitute and as our federal Head for His body called the Church, in order to redeem us from our sins—not just forensically, but subjectively as well.
Keil and Del. also note here with regards to Christ being made sick with our sin here in Isaiah: “The meaning is not, that He had by nature a sickly body, falling out of one disease into another; but that the wrath instigated by sin, and the zeal of self-sacrifice (Psm. 69:10), burnt like the fire of a fever in His soul and body, so that even if He had not died a violent death, He would have succumbed to the force of the powers of destruction that were innate in humanity in consequence of sin, and of His own self-consuming conflict with them.”[12] Albert Barnes likewise notes here: “But if the word here means disease [which, no doubt, it does], it is only a figurative designation of severe sufferings both of body and of soul.”[13] I wholeheartedly agree. And Barnes even goes on to say how that Christ suffered in body and soul in a very personal and intimate way as all humans suffer in both body and soul, except in becoming physically sick. And though Barnes does not go so far as to say that Christ experienced our inward corruption in His soul as the just consequence due to our sin—as the very “wrath [of God] instigated by sin” as Keil and Deltzsch note—Barnes nevertheless believed that Christ did in fact experience some kind of calamitous effects upon His soul as well, and of which no one doubts. But none of those things constituted a suffering to the death of Christ’s soul, let alone in His physical body, for we are talking about something (such as sin) that brought a death to Christ in both His soul and in His body—as well as in Adam and in all of his posterity. This is the ultimate suffering for sin that Christ suffered for us in order to bring an end to the reign of sin. Any mental or physical anguish was just a walk-in-the-park, compared to all of the forces of hell from the wrath of God that were unleashed upon Christ’s soul and body as the just reward or compensation due to the sin of Adam and of all of us.
Disease that corrupts even unto death, whether physical and spiritual, is the inseparable companion of sin. Thus Christ bears both our sin and the consequence of our sin. And the “consequence” of our sin is death, both spiritually and physically, just as it was for Adam and Eve and all of their posterity. These are the consequences of our sin that Christ suffered for us, in order to redeem us from all such consequences. And not just to prune the branches, but to treat the root as well. The ax was in fact laid to our root. Like the fig tree, our entire tree had to be "cursed" in Christ. For if Christ didn’t suffer all of these things for us in both spirit and body, then He didn’t suffer for us, and we are still in our sins (which many, ironically, still believe). But the fact that He did, gives credence to the fact that we owe our exemption to all of this. This is why we are now called a new man (Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24) who cannot sin (1Jhn. 3:9), and why we can now mortify sin in our bodies (Rom. 6:11; 8:13; Col. 3:5). And it also exempts us from going straight to hell when we die; for “we have [now] come to the spirits of just men made perfect,” and not later in heaven (Heb. 12:23; see also ISV, NET Bible, NHEB, BLB, CEV), that they without us (who were in Abraham’s bosom) should not be made perfect until the redemption be applied and the new man become created in Christ. This is how the text here in Hebrews 12:23 literally reads. And it is even in accordance with what Peter says in First Peter 1:22: "you have purified your souls by obeying the truth" (NET Bible). The words, "you have purified," are a perfect active participle, which denote us at a certain point and time in the past when we obeyed the gospel (the Truth) and became inwardly purified with present results. The Contemporary English Version reads: "You obeyed the truth, and your souls were made pure." Thus, "the one being joined to the Lord is one spirit," not two (1Cor. 6:17; Berean Literal Bible). We are "one" in holy matrimony and intimate union with our Lord. Again, all of this goes back to us becoming a new man with a new heart in Christ who no longer continue in sin (1Jhn. 3:9). And, “This is how we know,” says John, “who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are (v. 10). And John even goes on to say that Christ appeared that He might “take away our sins” (not just forensically), in order that anyone who lives in Him will no longer keep on sinning (v. 5). Someone might argue in John 1:29 that Christ came to “take away sin” only in a “forensic” manner, but not here! And neither in 2Cor. 5:15 or in 1Pet. 2:24! And I even argue for this same idea in 2Cor. 5:21 and Rom. 8:3, along with countless others.
John Calvin notes here with regards to Isaiah 53:4: “Matthew quotes this prediction, after having related that Christ cured various diseases; though it is certain that he [Christ] was appointed not to cure bodies, but rather to cure souls; for it is of spiritual disease that the Prophet intends to speak.”[14] Kudos to John Calvin for truly understanding the nature of Christ’s death on the cross for us—not only in our “body,” but, even more importantly, in our “soul” as well. This is truly the freedom from sin that Christ came to set us free from; for unless the inside of the cup first be cleansed, it does one no service to clean the outside of the cup; for the pig that was washed will only return to its wallowing in the mire, even as a dog returns to its own vomit. In applying Isaiah 53:4 to Christ, Peter has correctly brought out the meaning, when he says: “Who Himself bore the sins [plural] of us in His body on the tree.” (lit. trans., 1Pet. 2:24). And then Peter goes on to say in the context of that verse in Isaiah: “By whose wounds you have been healed.” In fact, it even says in Isa. 53:5 that Christ was “wounded for our transgressions,” bruised for our “iniquities,” and that the correction due us was placed upon Christ. These are all the “consequences” or “sicknesses” of the beguiling nature of sin. In Isaiah 53:12 it says of Christ, “He bore the sin [singular] of many,” which I believe takes us back to “the sin” of Adam mentioned in Romans 5:12 through Romans 8:3, where Christ is said to finally condemn “the sin” of Adam in His flesh in Rom. 8:3. All the transgressions and all the sins that people commit are the result of that one sin of Adam and Eve. They are the expressions, consequences and affects of that one singular sin. And Christ bore it all to render judgment upon it all; upon sin’s root, as well as upon its branches; upon the power of sin, as well as upon its effects. And Peter also says that Christ bore our sins in Himself, in His body (en tw somati) or in His person (and even to His “soul” in Isa. 53:10, 11, 12), not outside of His body or soul. Our sins really became Christ’s sins, they do not “remain ours” as Archibald Hodge falsely asserts in his book on The Atonement. And all translations pretty much attest to this fact here in First Peter. In fact, the New Living Translation even makes it more clear, by saying: “He personally carried our sins in his body on the cross so that we can be dead to sin and live for what is right. By his wounds you are healed.” Charles Hodge and his son Archibald, flat-out deny this; because they, like so many, want to cuddle and coddle their supposed remaining depravity. But come out from among them, says the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing!
Peter says that by Christ’s wounds “we are healed.” Healed from what, may I ask? From physical sickness, as many erroneously assert here, in order to claim physical healing for their lives? Not at all. Even more importantly than the the body, in context Peter says it was to heal the deep wounds or consequences of sin that was like a spiritual cancer or a leprous condition which permeated our very soul. Thus the Lord “made His soul an offering for guilt” (v. 10); Christ had “anguish of soul” (v. 11); and He “poured out His soul” (v. 12) as an oblation even unto death both physically and spiritually. It was His soul for our soul, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth. It is all this that Christ came to ultimately redeem us from by His righteous blood shed for us, in order that we may walk in newness of life. “He gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil world” (Gal. 1:4). He has "freed us from our sins by His blood" (Rev. 1:5), in order to “redeem us from all iniquity” (Tit. 2:14), and to redeem us from all “foolish behavior” (1Pet. 1:18, YLT). And by us “now having been made free from the sin [tes harmartias], we have become servants of God, having our fruit unto holiness” (Rom. 6:22). The forensic aspect in all of this is no less vitally important; but the inward aspect of this in the circumcision of our hearts is no less to be diminished as inconsequential. Almost everyone will correctly claim (at least in most of the commentaries I have read) that the new man created in Christ after God’s very own image and likeness, according to Eph. 4:24, cannot and does not sin; but then they will go on to say that a part of us still wants to sin inside, according to their skewed view and understanding of Romans 7. But if our old man of who we use to be Adam in Rom. 6:6, has been killed (which he has), then where is this so-called insidious little leaven of sin to be found in us? Nowhere! Our house has been swept clean before our Lamb can reside within and be eaten by us! And if all this is in fact the case, then John MacArthur’s words noted at the beginning of this article now begin to make all the more sense: “So righteous and holy is this new self [or new man] that Paul refuses to admit that any sin comes from the new creation in God’s image....Paul places sin in the believer's life in the body….he will not allow that new inner man to be given responsibility for sin.”[15] The only thing we have to now contend with is our physical body’s cravings for the things of this world. And it is our relation now to our old man as being dead, that Paul now says, “Even so reckon ye also yourselves to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof: neither present your members unto sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves unto God, as alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.” (vv. 11-13; ASV). How are we to “reckon” this? We are to reckon it in our physical bodies by the fact that our old man or old nature has now become dead to sin in the crucifixion of Christ. Greater is He that is now in us, than he that is in the world. And it is upon knowing this that we can now “reckon” it as so. We cannot, and will not, reckon what we do not know to be true in our lives. As a man thinks in his heart, so is he. Everyone acts in accordance with how they perceive themselves. If garbage is in, then garbage will inevitably come out! And if all of us still believe we are the person in Romans 7, then we are pretty much going nowhere fast. Such a person does not really “know” that they are now dead to sin, due to the fact that they have been taught that it still remains alive and well within them. But in reality, that little “leaven” has been removed from our house to where we can now honestly obey Christ’s command: “Go, and sin no more!” Truly, this truth has set me free. And it will set you free as well. The only “leaven” that is to be removed from our midst is the leaven of the doctrines, commandments and teachings of all these individuals who would teach us otherwise, not the sin. The leaven of the sin of the old man created in Adam has been removed. I had said earlier that more needs to be said concerning Christ being our substantiate and identification, and this is it brethren. This is what Christ has truly “redeemed” us from. It was to go at the heart and the root of the matter—the corruption and depravity that springs from the old heart or old man. There is nothing more liberating for us than this truth that is here set before us. But we must first “know” it before we can “reckon” it; otherwise, we just won’t “reckon” it as we truly should. Our faith will become shipwrecked on the doctrines and teachings of all such men who teach to the contrary. “These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and who do not have the Spirit.” (Jude 19). Clearly, someone here does not have the Spirit. Someone here is not teaching a “wisdom” that comes from above. And, clearly, someone here is teaching “the doctrines of devils” and demons.
Though not for all the reasons that I propose in this article, Arthur Pink’s words below are apropos to this subject at hand:
As we attempt to approach a subject so important, so wonderful, yet so unspeakably solemn, let us remember that it calls for a heart filled with awe, as well as a sense of our utter unworthiness. To touch the very fringe of the holy things of God ought to inspire reverential fear. But to take up the innermost secrets of His covenant, to contemplate the eternal counsels of the blessed Trinity, to endeavor to enter into the meaning of that unique transaction at Calvary, which was veiled with darkness, calls for a special degree of grace, fear, and humility, of heavenly teaching, and the humble boldness of faith... When we remember that the Atonement is the most important subject that can engage the minds of either men or angels; that it not only secures the eternal happiness of all God’s elect, but also gives to the universe the fullest view of the perfections of the Creator; that in it are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, while by it are revealed the unsearchable riches of Christ; that through the very Church that has been purchased thereby is being made known to principalities and powers in the heavenlies the manifold wisdom of God (Eph. 3:10)—then of what supreme moment must it be to understand it aright! But how is fallen man to apprehend these truths to which his depraved heart is so much opposed? All the force of intellect is less than nothing when it attempts, in its own strength, to comprehend the deep things of God. Since a man can receive nothing except it be given him from heaven (John 3:27), much more is a special enlightenment by the Holy Spirit needed if he is to enter at all into this highest mystery.
To what source then can we appeal for light, for understanding, for an explanation and interpretation of the Cross? Human reasoning is futile, speculation is profane, the opinions of men are worthless. Thus, we are absolutely shut up to what God has been pleased to make known to us in His Word... The plan of redemption, the office of our Surety, and the satisfaction that He rendered to the claims of justice against us have no parallel in the relations of men to one another. We are carried above the sphere of the highest relations of created beings into the [majestic] counsels of the eternal and independent God. Shall we bring our own line to measure them? [16]We must, of necessity, beware of all self-conceit and all man-made opinions and philosophies on the Atonement, unless we can prove them by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Sadly, the high sounding philosophies and vain (or worthless) reasonings and deceitfulness of men have muddied the waters for us when it comes to understanding exactly what Christ did for His people on the cross. Did Christ justify us? Thank God, yes! But even more than that, Christ has sanctified us to be holy and blameless at His coming, just like Job and all the saints who practiced what they preached. God, to show His love towards us, showed Himself to be God in this: that He could be God and still humble Himself to go so low, and I mean really “low,” even as a worm (Psm. 22:6), in order to die in union with us as the old man so that He could raise us up in union with Him as a new man.
An individual online, who is himself reformed in his theology, once wisely stated concerning many in the reformed camp: “In trying to beat Socinian rationalism at its own game, Reformed theologians were conceding the Socinian assumption that every aspect of God’s work of reconciliation will be exhaustively explicable in terms of a natural theology of divine government, drawn from the world of contemporary legal and political thought. Thus, in their zeal to show themselves rational, they became rationalistic.” And this is no less true today with regards to those in our midst who attempt to rationalize the Atonement down to the bare notion or idea of something only being realized “forensically,” and not subjectively as well, at least not on a level in us that should in fact be recognized on a very deep, intimate, and personal level in the crucifixion of the moral depravity and corruption of our old sinful hearts. In their “zeal” to defend the penal satisfaction to justice in a forensic manner, many brethren have stripped and robbed the cross of its personal efficacy and power towards us in the crucifixion of our old man, and in the raising us up as a new man, and then even downplay all of this to mean things that they just do not mean, such as: being still part old man and part new man; being part unregenerate and part regenerate; being part unrenewed and part renewed; and even the insidious notion or idea, as Douglas Moo claims in his commentary on Romans 6, that Christ only crucified our relation to the world as we stood in Adam, doing nothing whatsoever within us subjectively on a personal level. It is referred to in Christian jargon as: the “corporate” or “historical-redemptive” viewpoint. Thus Moo writes: “What I suggest is that the ‘old self’ is a relational and corporate concept. It does not refer to a part of or to a nature within us....What is crucified, then, is...relationship.... [A]t this point [i.e., in the crucifixion of our ‘old man’] the governing idea is not that God changes us inside, but that he moves us from one regime to another”[17] This is humanistic rationalism or logic to the nth degree. It entirely robs the cross of its personal and intimate efficacy for us, to the bare notion or idea that Paul in Romans 6 is talking about nothing done “within us” whatsoever. Are these the kind of teachers you want to lend your ears to? Does this so-called truth set you free? Or, is what I am presenting to you here today the actual means of setting you free? This is what we have come to in all of this in the Church today: rationalists who rationalize away the power and efficacy of the cross to just a bare legal notion or idea, or even just an outward “corporate” relationship, doing nothing whatsoever in us subjectively, let alone even in Christ—at least not on the level that the Bible truly reveals to us through the revelation of the Apostles.
If Paul is referring to himself as a believer in Romans 7 with ever-present indwelling sin, then, in the words of Godet: “So understood of the description of the miserable state, vv. 14-25, would be the demonstration not of the impotence of the law, but of that of the gospel”[18] This is a point by Godet that should not go quickly unnoticed. Romans 7:15-19 not only reveals the inefficiency of the Law to make Paul holy, but the inefficiency of the gospel (if indeed this is Paul as a believer), for Paul says unequivocally in these verses that he only keeps on “practicing” (Gk. prasso; NASB) those things that he did not really deep down inside want to do. And the law producing “all kinds of coveting” in verse 8 was one of them. But almost all commentators agree that Paul wrote his epistle to the Romans while staying three months in Cenchrea on his third missionary journey in Acts 20:3. And soon thereafter he sails to Miletus to meet the Elders from Ephesus, exclaiming all to the contrary of what he says in Rom. 7:8: “I have not coveted anyone’s silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves KNOW that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions” (v. 33). “In everything I did, I showed you,” says Paul, “it is more blessed to give than to receive.” (v. 35). I rest my case. Paul was NOT speaking of himself in Romans 7 as a believer who continually sinned, let alone even “coveted” at that! In fact, in many of his epistles Paul rebuked those who coveted, and even said at one point and time that we should not even eat with such people, and that such people would not even inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor. 5:11; 6:9-10), which is the very same thing he says of all those in Gal. 5:21 who “practiced” (Gk. prossontes) such things.
In conclusion, Lange sums up all of this under 2Cor. 5:21 in respect to Christ being “made sin” for us: “He who knows no sin, to whose internal nature or outward action all contradiction to God or departure from the Divine will was a complete stranger, altogether beyond His personal experience or consciousness....God allows sin to become an actual experience to Him who has never committed it in fact.”[19] So, the question still remains: In what sense did Christ exactly “experience” our sin? After all that was said above, need we really ask? Some will say only by imputation in the bearing of our “guilt,” absent of any sin in or upon His person. But this destroys the antithesis between not “knowing” something intimately on a personal level, verses actually “knowing” something intimately on a personal level, which no one by now should argue otherwise. Not to mention the fact that Christ is said to be “made” sin, antithetically to having never being made sin before. I for one believe ‒ and I believe also the Scriptures ‒ argue for a complete identification in Christ’s human nature of spirit, soul, and body with our sin ‒ along with the power behind it all ‒ in order to crucify it and render it powerless over our lives so that we may walk in all righteousness and holiness before God. God dealt with Christ as the sin-bearing Substitute for His people, inflicting upon Christ all of their sins. And as their sin-bearing Substitute, Christ was justly exposed to all of the dreadful consequences, both physically and spiritually, that were due them in order to overturn it all. Jesus undid everything that Adam had done, and did everything that Adam had failed to do.
The late Greg Bahnsen had succinctly noted: “Accordingly we need to ask: from what does Jesus save us, and in what way has He done so? The Biblical answer is plain and plentiful. Jesus saves us from sin and its consequences.” [20]
Bahnsen then goes on to say:
This is not at all to say, however, that God's "saving" work for sinners is restricted to judicial concerns – that God's only concern is to deliver His people from a guilty verdict and eternal condemnation. Salvation also brings renovation, regeneration – veritable re-creation.... Man’s moral dilemma encompasses not only the guilt of sin but also its pollution of his character: his waywardness, evil desires, disinclination to good, slavery to sin, or depravity.... Our objective, judicial problem before God brings with it a subjective, internal corruption which is nothing less than complete spiritual deadness.... God’s grace in Christ saves sinners not only from the objective guilt of their sin, but also from the internal pollution and power of their sin as well. [21]This is what I have been in fact saying all along in this article. And I appreciate Bahnsen’s candidness and forthrightness on this matter. Many reformed brethren (and even many Christians for that matter) won’t even go that far in stating what Bahnsen has just said. But Bahnsen, like most, still believed we have indwelling sin. And he, like most, does not tell us how Christ saved us from this “internal pollution” and “power” of sin, for Bahnsen also says in this article written by him that Christ did not personally have our sin(s) imparted or “infused” (as he words it) into Him, calling such an idea, “heretical horror!”[22], and pretty much parroting everyone else who has reasoned as such like him who think that Christ personally being "made sin" in His human flesh would have overshadowed His own previous personal holiness and righteous virtue as the unblemished Lamb of God. So then how, may I again ask, did Christ condemn this “internal pollution” and “power” of sin in us, if He didn’t in fact become us with our sin imparted (or “infused”) into Him in order to kill it and render it powerless in our lives? Paul doesn’t tell us that Christ’s innocence alone condemned the power of sin in us, but that Christ as a Sin-Bearer of our sins in and upon His flesh, making His flesh as “sinful flesh” according to Romans 8:3 (and even according to 2Cor. 5:21), condemned the power of our sin in His flesh—and in us! Again, not as a sinless substitute, but as a substitute with our sin placed in and upon Christ’s entire human nature of spirit, soul, and body. God had told Adam, literally in the Hebrew, that: “in dying you shall die” (Gen. 2:17; see also YLT). In other words, in dying spiritually as a result of disobedience, Adam would also die physically, returning to the ground from which he was made. And before being in Christ we were also dead both spiritually and physically as a result of our union in Adam as our federal head. But in Christ dying as our federal head with our sin placed in and upon His person, He was in fact made alive through the righteousness of life that was found in His shed blood (speaking better things than that of Abel's), justifying both Him and us unto a resurrection of life. Christ's life (as well as ours) as the son of man is in His righteous and unblemished blood poured out on the altar of sacrifice at the foot of the cross, with the little remaining blood in His body presented and sprinkled before the Father upon heaven's mercy seat (Heb. 9:12; 12:24). In spiritually dying, Adam (and all those in him) would die for his disobedience unto sin; whereas in Christ dying spiritually to our sin placed in and upon His person, He (and all those in Him) are made alive by His obedience unto righteousness. Thus our old man was put off with a new man re-created in his place. Now that's what I call substitution and identification! Our Second Adam far exceeds what our first Adam did to us; with Christ becoming like us (and even as Adam) in order that all of us might become even as He is. Hallelujah!
Gal. 3:13 offers us an important parallel to 2Cor. 5:21 and Rom. 8:3. Paul asserts in Galatians that Christ became “a curse” for us in order to redeem us from that curse and incur a blessing for us through the offering up of Himself to God with our sin placed in and upon His person. Here Paul is not focusing on Jesus’ glorious and sinless human life “as a lamb without spot and blemish” (1Pet. 1:19) in order to justify us, but on Christ’s inglorious death as a sinner to condemn and curse sin (our sin) in His flesh in order to redeem us from that sin (see also Tit. 2:14). In the OT ceremonies, the animal offered up to atone for sins had to be holy and without defect precisely so that both the priest and the offerer could rest assured that the death that the animal died was not for itself, but for another. It was dying in the place of another. And in the case of Leviticus 16, the animal that atoned for sin must not only be without defects, but the identical accompanying Scapegoat had the people’s sins imparted to it (through the laying on of hands) and confessed over it in order to bear and to carry away their sins. As such, John says by revelation that Christ was, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (Jhn. 1:29).[23] The spotless Lamb of God who knew no sin, under another figure or guise in Leviticus 16, was made sin for us so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God, not only forensically but practically as well. And this transference of sin by the laying on of hands upon a lamb as an offering for sin is also alluded to in Lev. 4:32-33, not to mention what Isaiah says about God laying upon Christ "the iniquity of us all" (53:6) and having Him "bear their iniquities" (v. 11; see also immediate footnote above for more on Christ bearing our sin and the impartation of this sin in and upon Christ through the laying on of hands).
What has been delineated above, beloved, is the doctrine of substitution and identification—both in Him and for us. Christ became as us that we might become as Him. The first Adam became just the opposite of what he originally was, and we became like him after his fall. Christ reversed all of that for us as our Second Adam, killing what was created by our first Adam in taking on his sinful flesh, condemning it, and then re-creating us as a new man after the image and likeness of God (cp. Eph. 4:24). What was lost in Adam, has been gloriously restored to us in the person and work of Christ on the cross. But, again, some beg to differ.
Click here for part five.
Footnotes:
[1] Isaiah, vol. 3, p. 343; italics for emphasis his.
[2] Ibid, p. 344; emphasis his.
[3] Ibid, p. 345.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Accessed online at: biblegateway.com. Emphasis mine.
[6] Accessed online at: biblehub.com. Emphasis mine.
[7] Accessed online at: biblehub.com. Words in brackets and emphasis mine.
[8] Accessed online at: biblehub.com. Words in brackets his, emphasis mine.
[9] Ibid, p. 346.
[10] Ibid; emphasis and words in brackets mine.
[11] Ibid, p. 347; emphasis mine.
[12] Accessed online at: biblehub.com; emphasis mine.
[13] Accessed online at: biblehub.com; emphasis and words in brackets mine.
[14] Accessed online at: biblehub.com; emphasis mine.
[15] MacArthur NT Comm., Ephesians, pp. 178-179; words in brackets mine.
[16] Satisfaction of Christ; pp. 6, 7, 8.
[17] NIV Application Commentary, Romans, p. 207; emphasis and words in brackets mine.
[18] Romans, p. 281.
[19] Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, accessed online at: biblehub.com.
[20] The Judicial and Substitutionary Nature of Salvation; accessed online at: http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt153.htm. Emphasis his.
[21] Ibid. Emphasis mine.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Archibald Hodge, in his book, The Atonement, goes to great pains on pages 176-177 to prove that the Hebrew words for “bear” in the OT with regards to Christ denote only the idea of bearing a penalty (or “guilt”), and not the actual removal of a thing, such as our sins; for Hodge (and all those in league with him) doesn’t even believe our sins were actually transferred or imparted to Christ, but only that Christ bore our “guilt” as a penal satisfaction to justice. He cites a couple of OT examples of people being held “guilty” without necessarily removing anything. And he even cites Lev. 16:22 as a proof text for this kind of “bearing” of the scapegoat, seemingly overlooking entirely the fact that the scapegoat is said to bear “all the sins” of the people, not just their “guilt.” But even this he finagles to mean just the guilt of our sins and not the sins themselves. But all of this was for the time being only typical and symbolical, not actual, so Hodge is not justified in saying that our sins were not literally transferred to Christ based upon this OT “type”. At the end of this chapter of his, Hodge writes:
...it is a notorious fact, admitted by all scholars, that the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament freely, accommodating the sense to a present purpose. Isaiah [53:4 (2), 11, 12] affirms that Christ bore our sorrows [or sins]—that is, bore them on himself in order to remove them. Isaiah uses the technical words נשא [nasa] and סבל [sabal]; the Septuagint translates by φέρω [phero], but Matthew [8:17] substitutes ἔλαβε [from the Greek lambano]. There is no contradiction; only Isaiah emphasized the carried, and Matthew emphasized the removed. The first pointed out the means, the other the result effected.” (Ibid., p. 178; emphasis and words in brackets mine).So in reading Hodge, I began to wonder, which is it? To bear, or to bear and remove? For his own a priori theological reasons Hodge believed Christ only bore our “guilt” and just "removed" that, but not our sin. But this seems hardly the case in Mat. 8:17, where Matthew in quoting Isaiah 53:4 applies it to Christ actually removing physical sickness and disease, which were the evident tokens or signs of the eventual removal of even the greater disease of sin as mentioned earlier in the main body of this discussion. Saint John by revelation also argued otherwise, noting how that Christ was “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jhn. 1:29), using the Greek word airo this time to denote this removal of our sin. And if anyone argues here that John just meant Christ removing our sin in a forensic or judicial manner, John again refers to this idea of Christ removing our sins in a practical manner as well in 1 John 3:5, using the same Greek word. Conspicuously, Hodge mentions this Greek word airo only in passing on page 177, and says that it means just "to bear away," citing no Scriptures whatsoever to prove his theory, and then quickly moves on to other Greek words (such as phero and anaphero) that support his idea of Christ just "bearing" our "guilt." But the Greek Septuagint and the Greek New Testament give us a number of examples of airo also including the idea to "remove" or "take away."
John had no problem in understanding the One who would “bear” our sin according to the Hebrew word “nasa” used in Isa. 53:4 and 12, would also “take away” (or carry away) our sin according to how the Hebrew word “nasa” is to be understood in Lev. 16:22 (see God's Word Trans.), in accordance with how it is also translated in the Greek Septuagint in 1Sam. 15:25 and 1Sam. 25:28 of “removing” a fault, and not just “bearing” it. For the Greek Septuagint likewise uses the same Greek word “airo” in these passages that John uses to denote this “removal” of our sins. In 1Sam. 15:25, the Brenton Septuagint Translation reads with regards to Saul imploring Samuel, starting in verse 24: “And Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned, in that I have transgressed the word of the Lord and thy direction; for I feared the people, and I hearkened to their voice. And now remove (Gk. airo) I pray thee, my sin, and turn back with me, and I will worship the Lord thy God.” In 1Sam. 25:28, the Brenton Septuagint Translation again reads concerning Abigail with David: “Remove (Gk. airo) I pray thee, the trespass of thy servant; for the Lord will surely make for my lord a sure house, for the Lord fights the battles of my lord, and there shall no evil be ever found in thee.”
On page 176 in Archibald Hodge’s book called, The Atonement, he says that “nasa,” when construed with sin, “always plainly means ‘to bear sin’ in the sense of [only] ‘being penally responsible for it”; and his father Charles says the exact same thing in his Systematic Theology, vol. 2, p. 201. But how does this square with these passages above in First Samuel? It doesn’t. These verses in First Samuel completely reveal otherwise. Was Saul and Abigail asking Samuel and David to be penally responsible for their sins? How absurd is that! And the fact that the Septuagint translators chose the Greek “airo” for “nasa” (with John also likewise using it) shows that the idea of just bearing sin to be penally responsible for the guilt of it, and not to somehow actually remove it, is completely unfounded. Neither Saul nor Abigail were asking Samuel or David to bear their penalty of guilt, let alone even bear their sin, but to somehow and in someway placate, remove, and take away their sin from them—impossible for men to actually do, but not impossible in Christ’s case. Many translations try to rectify this incongruence in these verses in First Samuel by stating that both Saul and Abigail were only asking for “forgiveness.” But both nasa and airo do not allow for this translation. The literal Hebrew (and the Greek Septuagint) really do tell the story of what both Saul and Abigail were asking for. They were asking that their sin be removed both out-of-sight and out-of-mind from the minds of both Samuel and Saul. Forgiveness somewhat tells the story, but it doesn’t tell the whole story; and it definitely doesn’t mean to bear their sin or to be penally responsible for the guilt of their sin, as Archibald Hodge and his father claim. There are roughly 172 occurrences of “airo” used for the Hebrew “nasa” in the Greek Septuagint, and in all of these instances it means nothing more than to bear or to carry, with the context sometimes also denoting something to be borne or carried away. And when the idea of removing or taking away is implied in the context, the Greek word airo is definitely more fitting than the Greek words phero or anaphero.
It is a well-attested fact that the Apostles used the Greek Septuagint. And of all the words that John could have used to describe Christ just “bearing” our sin, he chose the most least likely one that denotes more than Christ just “bearing” our sin(s), but one that denotes also the “removal” of our sin(s) as well. For, again, bearing implies removal and removal implies bearing—at least as far as Christ is concerned. Normally the Greek word anaphero is used for “bearing,” as in Heb. 9:28 and 1Pet. 2:24. And even in these cases the idea of bearing in order to remove is not without precedent when we are talking about the nature of Christ’s work. Regardless, there is to be no doubt on how John understood the Greek airo to be interpreted here. And, again, his usage of it in 1Jhn. 3:5 substantiates this idea of “removal”— a “removal” that implies also a bearing. And it is of "sin," not just "guilt." Not just forensically, but practically as well; not just in expiation, but in our sanctification.
A plethora of NT examples for this Greek word airo being used for “taking away” or “removing” are: Mat. 13:12; 21:21, 43; 22:13; 24:39; Lke. 6:29, 30; 8:12, 18; 11:22, 52; 17:31; 19:26; Jhn. 2:16; 10:18; 11:39, 41, 48; 15:2; 17:15; 19:15, 31, 38; 20:1, 2, 13, 15; Acts 8:33 (2); 21:11, 36; 22:22; 1Cor. 6:15; Eph. 4:31; Col. 2:14; Rev. 18:21. In most of these instances the idea of lifting up and carrying away is implied in order to remove from one place to another.
As Leon Morris says here with regards to Christ “taking away” (or removing) our sin in John 1:29:
The verb is airo, which John uses more than any other New Testament writer (26 times)... [whereas] the idea of “bearing” sin in Heb. 9:28; I Pet. 2:24 is conveyed by anaphero, but there is not likely to be a great difference of meaning. MacGregor, agreeing that the verb airo means not “take upon oneself,” but “take out of the way,” yet says, “But the latter thought, while enriching the former, also includes it, and this Christ did.”.... In the Johannine manner probably both meanings are in mind. (The Gospel According to John, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub., 1971], n. 61, p. 148).To remove our sin(s) as John claims, Christ as our vicarious substitute of necessity had to personally bear it, ruling out the idea that He just bore our guilt and not our sin as Hodge believes. And if Christ bore our sin in and upon His person, then He must of necessity also remove it before entering into heaven. For “he who has died has been freed from sin... For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 6:7, 10-11; NKJV).
D. A. Carson also notes here under John 1:29: “Certainly the verb airo normally means ‘remove,’ ‘take away,’ not ‘bear away in atoning death’ or the like (for which the more common verb is anaphero, cf. Dodd, IFG, pp. 230-238). (The Gospel According to John, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub., 1991], p. 150).
Godet likewise has this to say under John 1:29: “In order to take away sin, it was necessary that Christ should begin by taking upon Himself the burden of it, to the end that He might be able afterwards to remove it by the work of sanctification. The idea of removing includes, therefore, implicitly that of bearing.” (Commentary on John’s Gospel, [Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 1978], p. 313). In other words, the two ideas of “bearing” the burden of sin and “removing” it are not exclusive of one another in God’s scheme of things when it comes to what Christ did both forensically and practically for us. Far be this from Christ just removing our "guilt."
With regards to the laying on of hands, it is no secret that this was the practice in the OT for the burnt offerings, the peace offerings, the sin offerings, and the guilt offerings in Leviticus 1-5 (see also Ex. 29:10-19; Lev. 8:14-22; 2Chr. 29:23). And this was also true for the sin offering on the Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16. And though in these cases the sins of the people were not actually removed from them, for the blood of bulls and goats could not cleanse the inner conscience, these symbolic gestures no doubt spiritually procured the forgiveness of their sins. On the other hand, we clearly see its spiritual use or application in Jacob blessing his children (Gen. 48:14) and in the spiritual confirmation and blessing of individuals throughout the Old and New Testaments (cf. Lev. 24:14; Num. 8:10; 27:23; Deut. 34:9; 2Kin. 11:16; Acts 6:6; 8:17; 13:3; 19:6; Rom. 1:11; 1Tim. 4:14; 2Tim. 1:6; Heb. 6:2). Clearly, when it came to people, the laying on of hands in the Old and New Testaments was no bare gesture, void of any spiritual conference or impartation of some kind. In Romans 1:11, Paul had hoped to come to Rome so “that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift.” In 1Tim. 4:14, Paul told Timothy: “Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.” And in this same epistle Paul warns Timothy: “Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins: keep thyself pure.” Evidently doing so would reap some kind of tragic spiritual consequences for Timothy. And we see this example of the laying on of hands too suddenly with that of the priests in 2Kin. 11:16, who are said to have laid their hands on the evil queen Athaliah. Who knows what spiritual consequences this also must have reaped for them! In 2Tim. 1:6, Paul again tells Timothy: “stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.” In Acts 8:17-18, Simon the Sorcerer “saw” how that the Holy Spirit was somehow received by that which was imparted through the laying on of hands. And most likely it was the sign of the gift of tongues which accompanied the disciples receiving the Spirit, and not the impartation of the Spirit himself. And the same is said of Paul in Acts 19:6. No doubt, what happened to Christ on the cross was a result of the curse and the heavy hand of the wrath of God that was upon Him in spiritually condemning Him as a sinner in our stead. God’s law in Deut. 21:23 had mandated this for all those under the law. And Christ was made “under the law” in union with His people (Gal. 4:4). Thus Christ being “cursed” actually became the means whereby Christ could identify with His people as their vicarious sin-bearing substitute, so that they could also eventually identify with Him as one who was without sin as their sinless substitute. Christ became all, in all, for all of His elect people.
