p. 181 | WAS JESUS A SINNER? by R. M. Kilgore

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 8, 1876

WAS JESUS A SINNER?

By R. M. Kilgore

“Sin is the transgression of the law” says the inspired writer; but B. R. Womack, in his third article of a series of three, published in the Standard of April 13, 1876, headed the “Christian Sabbath,” makes the astounding and blasphemous statement that Jesus not only violated the law, but involved others in its violation also. This, coming from one who professes great reverence for the Author of Christianity, and published to the world by the professed advocates of the religion which they inaugurated, renders the position which they occupy very strange indeed. We give here his language, and the italics are his own:—

“Jesus, the author of Christianity, voluntarily and intentionally violated the Sabbath of the Jews, and caused others to do it; and then triumphantly proclaimed himself the Lord of the Sabbath, and thus involved himself and others in the violation of the law whose penalty was death. This will appear when we consider that he wrought seven miracles on the Sabbath, But,

“1. No applications were made to him for such action. The reason is obvious. They thought, If he is a good man he will not break the Sabbath and will rebuke us; and if he is a bad man he cannot cure us; so in neither case did they apply. But he wrought.

“2. Any other day would have done just as well; for there was no compulsion making immediate action necessary. But he wrought on that day.”

“3. He arbitrarily chose a method of working miracles on that day which he well knew would make real the charge that he was a Sabbath-breaker, involving others in the same relation to the law. He made it convenient to pass along where the man at Bethesda lay, on the Sabbath, and instead of saying to him, “Remain here till to-morrow; for this is the Sabbath,” he said, “Take up thy bed and walk.” At his word the happy man, bearing his worn couch, moved along the streets of the sacred city, obtruding himself upon the attention of the multitude as an open violator of the Sabbath law. See Jer. 17: 21. Jesus did not do this by accident. So in curing the blind man, he could easily have said: ‘See!’ but no, he chooses to violate the Sabbath in two respects and involve the man. He makes ointment, applies it, and commands the man to go and wash in the pool of Siloam. I submit: Does this not seem to agree with the indications of the history of the Sabbath that there was going to be a change, and that it was now being made?”

Here indeed is a very grave charge. To impeach the Son of God of “intentionally” and “voluntarily” violating the law himself and teaching others to do the same, certainly makes him a sinner and a rebel against the government of the Father. How can he who is a sinner be a Saviour of sinners? How, then, can we be saved, since we cannot save ourselves? Our good works cannot save us, and why should we trust in the merits of one who is no better than ourselves, a sinner? The blood of such a sacrifice cannot atone for, or take away, the sin of a world;—no merit there.

But this is only a repetition of the charge made by the Pharisees, when they saw his mighty works in healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, etc. They said, “This man is a sinner.” “This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the Sabbath day.” But Christ, at another time, when asked if it was lawful to heal on the Sabbath day, replied, “It is lawful to do well on the Sabbath.” It was according to law to do well on that day, but it was not in harmony with their traditions. It was the tradition that he had violated. They had heaped upon the law pertaining to the Sabbath, traditions which did not belong to it, binding burdens upon the people which they could not bear and offering a vain worship, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” And Christ said, “Thus have ye made the commandments of God of none effect by your tradition.”

Christ told them they were transgressing the commandment of God—that none of them kept the law. “Ye are of your father the devil. ... When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it. ... Which of you convinceth me of sin?” John 8: 44–46. It was a base slander then, when uttered by his enemies, and what can it be called when repeated by his professed followers? It is worse. It is criminal. No! my Lord neither violated the law of his Father, nor failed to obey the peculiar commandments and ordinances pertaining to the Jewish economy previous to his passion, when the latter were nailed to the cross.

He was no sinner. Peter says, “He did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.” The repenting thief said, “This man hath done nothing amiss.” Paul said that “he knew no sin;” that he “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin;” and that “he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such a high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens.” And John adds, “That he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

The prophet Isaiah declared that Christ would “magnify the law, and make it honorable.” Isa. 42: 21. And he responds, “Lo, I come ... to do thy will, O my God.” Ps. 40: 7, 8, and again, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” He requires his followers to fulfill the law just as he did, to obey and keep it; for he says, “I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love.” “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven; but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of Heaven.” Matt. 5: 19.

Let us, then, love, serve, and obey him; for he will soon appear the second time, without sin unto salvation.

R. M. KILGORE.