Post by Lee on Mar 8, 2014 23:48:06 GMT
8.—Had Jesus “an issue in his flesh?”—(Lev. 15:2.) If not, to what does the evangelist’s evidence tend?—(John 19:34.) And why is he so particular in asserting the veracity of his record?—(verse 35.)
In literal terms, the running of blood and water from the wound of the Roman spear was an “issue,” but it was not such an issue as was contemplated by the law. It was not an issue “in” the flesh which imports that the flesh is the organic cause. It was a mere oozing of fluids liberated mechanically from their ordinary channel, whereas an issue is a projection of diseased fluids from within the structure by the spontaneous force of the flesh itself. The stress John lays on his testimony has reference to the “piercing” which caused the bloody outflow, because this piercing had to do with a prophecy, and because it was resorted to as a precautionary substitute for bone-breaking, which had also been the subject of prediction in a negative sense.
9.—If Jesus was under a violated vow; had an issue in his flesh; had wounds in his head, hands, and feet; was cursed in the manner of his death (Gal. 3:13); touched a grave (Numbers 19:16);—all or any of these—would he be clean on awaking to life on the third day? Would he be exempted from the obligations of the law made and provided for such contingencies?
Paul’s teaching is that “the law hath dominion over a man so long as he liveth.”—(Rom. 7:1.) Therefore, even on the (mostly) inadmissible suppositions with which the question is prefaced, the answer would be “yes.” The law obtained all it could claim in his death. There could be no “obligation” after that event. It is upon this very principle that Paul says, “Ye are become dead to the law BY THE BODY OF CHRIST, that ye should be married to another, to him that is raised from the dead.”
1872 Christadelphian: Volume 9. 2001 (electronic ed.) (571). Birmingham: Christadelphian Magazine & Publishing Association.