Well I'm highly concerned you would say such a thing myself friend. It was a deeply deeply concerned set of questions.
I want to respond with clarity regarding your comment that Christ “needed to be justified from the sins of the elect.” I know you likely don’t mean to diminish His glory or imply any moral imperfection in Him—but I’m concerned the language used here, however unintentionally, suggests that.
Scripture is clear: Christ bore our sins
legally, not morally. In 2 Corinthians 5:21, Paul writes, “
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” That doesn’t mean Christ became sinful Himself. He was counted as sin—
imputed with our guilt—while remaining completely righteous in Himself. This is the consistent witness of Scripture. Isaiah 53 says, “
The Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all,” and goes on to show that His chastisement secured our peace (v.5). Yet even in bearing our sin, He remained the spotless Lamb.
Hebrews 4:15 reminds us that He was “
without sin.” To say He was “legally guilty” and needed justification risks implying that there was something within Christ that needed to be made right—which is simply not the case. If He were guilty, even legally in Himself, He could not have atoned for our guilt.
You referenced 1 Timothy 3:16, which says, “
He was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit…” That phrase,
“justified in the Spirit,” is understood to mean
vindicated—that is, the Spirit confirmed and displayed His righteousness. The clearest way that happened was through His resurrection. Romans 4:25 affirms this: “
He was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.” His rising from the dead was the Father’s public declaration that the work was finished, the payment made, and the Son vindicated in glory. It doesn’t mean He needed justification Himself.
So, I’d ask: what exactly do you mean by “Christ needed to be justified”? If it’s just another way of saying He was vindicated, then we agree though I will posit that vindicated is the best word to use in English to express truth. But if you mean that He, in some real sense, had to be declared righteous after having moral guilt, then we’re stepping outside the bounds of biblical teaching. Christ never stopped being righteous. He took on our sin judicially in order to satisfy God’s justice, but that never changed who He was: holy, undefiled, and perfectly obedient.
Sinful people stay dead; only someone who was perfect could be declared innocent under the law and rise to life under His own power. John 10:18
No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.” Romans 5:18 says that His one act of righteousness leads to justification for many. That righteousness had to be perfect from beginning to end—or it would not justify anyone.
Friend, I’m confident you hold a high view of Christ and His saving work. I only raise this because I know you wouldn’t want to say anything—however unintentionally—that could be taken as lowering the glory of the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.
Looking forward to hearing more of how you’re understanding that phrase “justified in the Spirit.” There's an important distinction we should be making.
In Christ and for His glory,
Hazelelponi
[
@John Bauer ,
@makesends , any thoughts on Christ's vindication in the resurrection?]
