The redemption of jesus
The Redemption of the Saviour, the Condemnation of Sin in the Flesh, and the Participation of Believers in His Salvation
A Comparative Study of Christadelphian and Valentinian Atonement
Introduction: The Saviour Who Needed Redemption
The question of whether the Saviour Himself required redemption presents an important point of comparison between early Valentinian Christianity and nineteenth-century Christadelphian theology. Although these movements emerged in very different historical and theological environments, both contain teachings in which the redemption accomplished through Jesus Christ is connected with a redemption that He Himself first received.
In mainstream Catholic and Protestant theology, Jesus is generally understood as possessing an entirely uncondemned human nature, free from the inherited physical consequences of Adam's transgression. His sacrifice is consequently interpreted primarily through substitutionary, legal, or sacrificial models in which He suffers for humanity.
Valentinian and pioneer Christadelphian interpretations approach the subject differently. Both emphasise that the Saviour entered into the condition from which humanity required deliverance. His saving work was not simply an external intervention on behalf of others; it involved His own passage through the condition of deficiency, limitation, or mortality.
Nevertheless, their explanations must be distinguished. Valentinian writings describe redemption through the metaphysical language of the Pleroma, the Kenoma, the Boundary, the spiritual seed, and the descending Name. Christadelphian theology explains redemption through Adamic mortality, sin in the flesh, sacrifice, resurrection, and the destruction of the law of sin and death.
The comparison is particularly interesting because both traditions preserve an understanding of the Saviour as one who receives redemption and subsequently becomes the means through which others receive it.
This study examines Hebrews 5:7, the arguments of John Thomas in Elpis Israel, Robert Roberts's interpretation of Hebrews 5:3 and 7:27, and the Valentinian evidence found in the Tripartite Tractate, Excerpts of Theodotus, Melchizedek, and the Odes of Solomon.
1. The Christadelphian Understanding of Sin in the Flesh
The foundation of pioneer Christadelphian atonement theology is the distinction between personal transgression and the physical principle of sin inherited from Adam.
John Thomas developed this distinction in Chapter 4 of Elpis Israel. He argued that Scripture uses the word sin in two related but distinct senses.
First, sin describes the transgression of divine law, as expressed in 1 John 3:4. Second, it describes the physical principle operating within mortal human nature, producing temptation, corruption, disease, and death.
This second meaning is particularly important when considering the constitution of Jesus Christ.
According to Thomas, Adam's disobedience introduced a physical condition into human existence. His descendants inherited a mortal constitution subject to the law of sin and death. Consequently, sin was not merely an accumulation of individual wrong actions but also a principle operating within human nature.
Paul describes this condition in Romans 7:17:
"Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me."
Thomas understood this expression as referring to the physical principle operating within human nature rather than simply personal moral wrongdoing.
He therefore understood Paul's expression "sinful flesh" in Romans 8:3 as describing the constitution of mortal humanity.
Thomas's conclusion was that:
"sin is a synonym for human nature".
This distinction establishes the foundation for understanding why Jesus required redemption despite being personally sinless.
2. Jesus Possessed the Same Mortal Nature as Humanity
Under the Christadelphian understanding of the Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith, particularly Clauses 5 and 8, Adam's transgression brought condemnation and mortality upon his descendants.
Jesus was born of Mary, a daughter of Adam. Consequently, He inherited the same physical constitution as the rest of humanity.
His nature was subject to temptation, suffering, weakness, and death. He did not possess an exemption from the physical consequences of Adam's transgression.
John Thomas expresses this argument particularly forcefully in Elpis Israel, Chapter 4:
"Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus, if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died".
This statement does not mean that Jesus committed personal transgressions. Rather, it distinguishes the physical condition of His flesh from His moral character.
Jesus possessed the inherited constitution of Adamic humanity, but He never yielded to its impulses.
This distinction is essential. His sinlessness consisted in perfect obedience, not in possessing a different physical nature from those He came to redeem.
Thus, Christadelphian theology presents Jesus as personally righteous while constitutionally mortal and condemned to death through the Adamic inheritance.
The significance of this teaching becomes especially apparent when considering Hebrews 5:7.
3. Hebrews 5:7: Jesus Prayed to Be Saved from Death
Hebrews 5:7 is particularly important to the Christadelphian understanding of the redemption of Jesus Himself.
The passage reads:
"Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared."
The passage describes Jesus praying to the Father, who possessed the power to save Him from death.
Within this theological framework, the expression is understood as more than a reference to His desire to escape the immediate suffering of crucifixion.
Jesus possessed a mortal constitution inherited through Mary. He therefore stood under the physical consequences of Adam's transgression.
His prayer demonstrates His dependence upon the Father for deliverance from death.
The Father alone could raise Him from the grave and transform His mortal condition into immortality.
The significance is that Jesus did not independently possess immortality during His mortal existence. He depended upon God for resurrection and exaltation.
This understanding is consistent with the distinction between His personal sinlessness and His inherited mortality.
Jesus was not being saved from personal transgressions. He was being delivered from the consequences of the Adamic condition that He shared with humanity.
His resurrection therefore represented the successful completion of His own redemption.
Through His obedience unto death, He overcame the condition of mortality and became the firstborn from the dead.
4. Hebrews 5:3 and 7:27: The High Priest Offered First for Himself
The argument becomes even more significant when Hebrews describes the sacrificial work of the high priest.
Hebrews 5:3 states:
"And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins."
Hebrews 7:27 similarly declares:
"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."
These passages establish a relationship between the priestly offering and the redemption of the priest himself.
Under the Christadelphian interpretation developed by Robert Roberts and other pioneers, Christ's offering included Himself because He possessed the Adamic constitution requiring deliverance.
The comparison is with the Levitical high priest, who offered sacrifices for himself before offering for the people.
Christ, as the greater High Priest, fulfilled the antitype.
His own redemption was not required because He had committed personal transgressions. Rather, it was necessary because He shared the mortal condition of those He represented.
Robert Roberts defended this understanding in his writings, including Good Words and Fair Speeches Which Deceive and The Blood of Christ.
The distinction between personal sin and inherited sin in the flesh is fundamental to his argument.
A particularly important statement attributed to Roberts in The Christadelphian (1875, p. 375), also quoted in Graham Hill's study of Hebrews, reads:
"that death was for himself first, not for sins of his own committing, but for deliverance from the (effect of the) sin of Adam from which he suffered in common with his brethren".
This statement expresses the central principle of the Christadelphian understanding of atonement.
Christ's death was necessary for His own deliverance from the consequences of Adam's transgression before its benefits could be extended to those represented by Him.
Hebrews 9:12 further describes Christ as having obtained eternal redemption through His own sacrificial work.
The emphasis is therefore upon a Saviour who passes through death into immortality and subsequently becomes the means of redemption for others.
5. Valentinian Atonement: The Redemption of the Saviour
A remarkable parallel appears in the Valentinian Tripartite Tractate, where the redemption of the Saviour is explicitly connected with the redemption of the entire creation.
The text describes the necessity of redemption extending beyond humanity to include the angels, the spiritual image, and the powers associated with the Pleroma.
It states:
"Not only do humans need redemption, but also the angels, too, need redemption, along with the image and the rest of the Pleromas of the aeons and the wondrous powers of illumination. So that we might not be in doubt in regard to the others, even the Son himself, who has the position of redeemer of the Totality, needed redemption as well, - he who had become man, - since he gave himself for each thing which we need, we in the flesh, who are his Church. Now, when he first received redemption from the word which had descended upon him, all the rest received redemption from him, namely those who had taken him to themselves. For those who received the one who had received (redemption) also received what was in him."
This passage is particularly significant because it directly establishes the principle that the Son Himself needed redemption.
The Saviour is not presented as an entirely unaffected external deliverer.
Having become man, He participates in the condition requiring redemption. The Word descends upon Him, and He receives redemption. Subsequently, those who receive Him also receive what was present within Him.
The structure resembles the Christadelphian understanding of Christ's own redemption preceding the redemption of those associated with Him.
However, the Valentinian explanation is metaphysical rather than biological.
The problem is expressed through the distinction between the Pleroma, representing divine fullness, and the deficiency beyond its boundary.
The Saviour enters the lower condition and receives the redemption necessary for His passage through it.
6. The Redemption of Jesus in the Excerpts of Theodotus
The Excerpts of Theodotus, preserved by Clement of Alexandria, provide further evidence of this Valentinian understanding.
In Excerpt 22, the relationship between baptism, angelic redemption, and the redemption of Jesus is explained.
The text reads:
"And when the Apostle said, 'Else what shall they do who are baptised for the dead?' . . . For, he says, the angels of whom we are portions were baptised for us. But we are dead, who are deadened by this existence, but the males are alive who did not participate in this existence. 'If the dead rise not why, then, are we baptised?' Therefore we are raised up 'equal to angels,' and restored to unity with the males, member for member. Now they say 'those who are baptised for us, the dead,' are the angels who are baptised for us, in order that when we, too, have the Name, we may not be hindered and kept back by the Limit and the Cross from entering the Pleroma. Wherefore, at the laying on of hands they say at the end, 'for the angelic redemption' that is, for the one which the angels also have, in order that the person who has received the redemption may, be baptised in the same Name in which his angel had been baptised before him. Now the angels were baptised in the beginning, in the redemption of the Name which descended upon Jesus in the dove and redeemed him. And redemption was necessary even for Jesus, in order that, approaching through Wisdom, he might not be detained by the Notion of the Deficiency in which he was inserted, as Theodotus says."
The final statement is particularly important:
"And redemption was necessary even for Jesus".
The passage identifies the descent of the Name upon Jesus at baptism as the event through which His redemption occurred.
Jesus had entered the condition of deficiency and required redemption so that He would not be detained by its limitations.
This differs considerably from the Christadelphian explanation of Hebrews 5:7. Nevertheless, both traditions associate the Saviour's own deliverance with His ability to accomplish redemption for others.
7. Jesus as the Redeemer Who Leads Others into Redemption
Excerpt 35 of Theodotus develops the relationship between the Saviour and those whom He delivers.
It reads:
"'Jesus our light' 'having emptied himself,' as the Apostle says, that is, according to Theodotus; having passed beyond the Boundary, since he was an angel of the Pleroma, led out the angels of the superior seed with him. And he himself had the redemption inasmuch as he had proceeded from the Pleroma, but he led the angels for the correction of the seed. For, in as much as they are bound for the sake of the parts, and plead and, being restrained for our sakes in their zeal to enter, they beg remission for us, that we may enter with them. For, since they may almost be said to need us in order to enter, for without us they are not permitted (therefore not even the Mother has entered with them without us, they say), they are obviously bound for our sake."
The Saviour's redemption is presented as the beginning of a wider restoration.
He receives redemption and leads the spiritual seed towards the fullness from which they have become separated.
Excerpt 36 further explains this relationship through the language of unity and division:
"Now they say that our Angels were put forth in unity, and are one, in that they came out from One. Now since we existed in separation, Jesus was baptised that the undivided should be divided until he should unite us with them in the Pleroma that we 'the many' having become 'one,' might all be mingled in in the One which was divided for our sakes."
Here baptism represents the restoration of unity.
Jesus enters the condition of separation so that those who are divided may be reunited through Him.
The principle is that the redemption received by the Saviour becomes available to those who are united with Him.
8. Melchizedek: The Saviour as a Living Offering
Another important text is the Nag Hammadi Melchizedek, which presents sacrificial language concerning the offering of the Saviour and those associated with Him.
The text states:
"Not only (that, but) I have come to reveal to you the truth, which is within the brethren. He included himself in the living offering, together with your offspring. He offered them up as an offering to the All. For it is not cattle that you will offer up for sin(s) of unbelief, and for the ignorances, and (for) all the wicked deeds which they will do [...]. And they do not reach the Father of the All"
It continues:
"Whom Death deceived. When he died, he bound them with the natures which are leading them astray. Yet he offered up offerings [...] cattle, saying, 'I gave them to Death, and the angels, and the [...] demons [...] living offering [...]. I have offered up myself to you as an offering, together with those that are mine, to you yourself, (O) Father of the All, and those whom you love, who have come forth from you who are holy (and) living. And <according to> the perfect laws, I shall pronounce my name as I receive baptism now (and) forever, (as a name) among the living (and) holy names, and (now) in the waters. Amen."
The emphasis upon including oneself in the living offering provides another interesting point of comparison with Christadelphian sacrificial theology.
In both frameworks, the Saviour's offering is not understood merely as an external transaction performed on behalf of others. He is personally included in the movement of redemption.
The language and metaphysical assumptions are different, but the participation of the Saviour in the offering is central to both.
9. The Odes of Solomon: Those Saved in Him Who Was Saved
The Odes of Solomon provide another expression of the relationship between the Saviour's redemption and that of believers.
Ode 8 declares:
"Pray and increase, and abide in the love of the Lord;
And you who were loved in the Beloved, and you who are kept in Him who lives, and you who are saved in Him who was saved.
And you shall be found incorrupt in all ages, on account of the name of your Father.
Hallelujah."
The expression "you who are saved in Him who was saved" is particularly relevant to this comparative study.
It presents the salvation of believers as dependent upon their participation in the salvation of the Beloved.
The wording closely resembles the principle expressed in the Tripartite Tractate: the Saviour receives redemption first, and those who receive Him subsequently receive what is within Him.
This is also comparable to the Christadelphian understanding of baptism into Christ's death and resurrection.
Believers are not saved independently of Christ. Their redemption depends upon their association with the one who has passed through death and received immortality.
10. Baptism and Participation in the Redeemed Saviour
Both traditions place considerable importance upon the believer's participation in the Saviour.
In Valentinianism, baptism and the reception of the Name connect the believer with the redemption accomplished through Jesus. The individual receives the same Name through which the Saviour was redeemed, enabling entry into the Pleroma.
In Christadelphian theology, baptism represents participation in the death and resurrection of Christ.
Romans 6 describes believers as being baptised into Christ's death and subsequently walking in newness of life.
The old Adamic constitution is represented as buried with Christ, while the believer enters a new relationship with God through the risen Saviour.
The two systems therefore share an important structural principle: salvation is not merely the forgiveness of wrongdoing through an external legal arrangement. It involves participation in the Saviour's own passage from the condition requiring redemption into a redeemed condition.
There are, however, important differences in their understanding of this participation.
Valentinian baptism involves the Name, angelic counterparts, the Boundary, and restoration to the Pleroma.
Christadelphian baptism involves repentance, faith, covenant, the representative death of Christ, and the hope of bodily resurrection.
Their respective explanations should not be confused, but their shared emphasis upon participation deserves recognition.
Conclusion: The Saviour Who Was Himself Redeemed
The comparison between Valentinian and pioneer Christadelphian atonement theology reveals a striking theological parallel.
In the Christadelphian understanding, Jesus inherited the mortal and physically condemned constitution of Adamic humanity. Although personally sinless, He possessed the physical principle of sin in the flesh. His death condemned that principle in His own body, and through resurrection the Father delivered Him from mortality and granted Him immortality.
Hebrews 5:7, 5:3, and 7:27 are therefore important to understanding why Christ's own deliverance forms part of His sacrificial work.
In Valentinian theology, the Saviour entered the condition of deficiency and required redemption through the descending Name. The Tripartite Tractate explicitly states that the Son Himself needed redemption after becoming man. The Excerpts of Theodotus further explain that the Name descended upon Jesus at baptism and redeemed Him, allowing Him to lead others towards the Pleroma.
The Melchizedek and Odes of Solomon provide additional expressions of participation in the Saviour's offering and redemption.
The central similarity can therefore be expressed as follows:
The Saviour receives redemption, and those who are united with Him receive redemption through Him.
This is the architectural principle connecting these otherwise very different traditions.
The Christadelphian explains it through the condemnation of sin in the flesh and the resurrection of mortal humanity. The Valentinian explains it through the descent of the Name, the redemption of the Saviour, and the restoration of unity in the Pleroma.
Neither system should be reduced to the other. Their understanding of creation, the nature of matter, the identity of the Father, and the ultimate destination of the redeemed remain fundamentally different.
Nevertheless, both preserve an important conception of the Saviour as one who does not stand entirely outside the condition requiring deliverance.
He enters it, receives redemption, and becomes the means through which others are redeemed.
The Saviour is therefore not simply the one who saves others, but also the one whose own deliverance establishes the foundation of their salvation.
