Clean Flesh Teachers

Clean Flesh Teachers

Sunday, 2 September 2018

A Time to Heal”: Historical Central Teaching on Christ Offering For Himself

This is the html version of the file http://www.genusa.com/Truth/A%20Time%20to%20Heal%20-%20Compilation.pdf.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.

Page 1

“A Time to Heal”: Historical
Central Teaching on Christ
Offering For Himself
A Time to Heal (1940)...........................................................................................2
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia (1941) .............................6
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)..............................................7
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia (1950).........................8
The Truth in Australia (1956) ................................................................................8
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall Ecclesia (1957)....................9
Comments by brother John Martin (1970) ..........................................................10
Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting (May 2000)..................11

Page 2

A Time to Heal (1940)
Careful readers of The Christadelphian from December, 1937, onwards will
have noticed that there has been a certain emphasis on the Bible teaching
concerning the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ. These are subjects
upon which much dispute has arisen in the past—particularly during the early
seventies, and at one or two periods later.
Some ecclesias in the U.S.A. for some years have been separated from the
ecclesias represented by The Christadelphian because of doubts about the
teaching of a brother now deceased, and of the attitude of ecclesias to the
question of fellowship. The publication of the recent articles on the disputed
subject has awakened hopes of a possible reunion of the ecclesias divided on
this matter, and already some reunion has been effected. The Petersham
ecclesia (Australia) asked the Arranging Brethren of Birmingham Central ecclesia
whether they endorsed the statements published in The Christadelphian
concerning both doctrine and fellowship. They at once replied that in their
considered judgment the article in The Christadelphian, May, 1940, pages 228–
230 set forth the truth in regard to doctrine and fellowship. With this assurance
the Petersham ecclesia resumed fellowship.
The Los Angeles ecclesia sent out an appeal (in March, 1940) that in view of
the articles published in The Christadelphian, ecclesias in America should heal
the wounds of division where no grounds for it existed. They circularised the
ecclesias in the U.S.A. and Canada quoting the articles in recent issues showing
that the barriers to fellowship were now removed, and urging that steps be taken
to close up the breaches.
The response to this effort of the Los Angeles brethren has led them to send
out a second appeal. In it they indicate the nature of the responses, the desire on
the part of most for reunion, and the doubts, sincerely held, in the minds of some
whether the right conditions exist for reunion.
This appeal is fourfold in form:
1. To ecclesias who separated from us in 1923, it is wisely pointed out that
it would be profitless to engage in discussions on what a deceased brother
may have believed and to demand a statement declaring his teaching to
be erroneous, especially when some are not sure what the brother taught,
but are quite clear what they themselves believe and are in absolute
agreement with the Birmingham Statement of Faith. It urges that if there is
doubt about the position of a neighbouring ecclesia they should ask if the
statements put forward in the second portion of this appeal are approved.
2. The second portion is addressed to ecclesias who have remained in
fellowship with Birmingham Central ecclesia throughout the controversy. It

Page 3

sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in
1923:
1. That the nature of Christ was not exactly like ours.
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
3. That Christ’s offering was for personal sins or moral impurity
only. That our sins laid on Christ made him unclean and accursed
of God, and that it was from this curse and this uncleanness that
Christ needed cleansing.
4. That Christ died as a substitute; i.e., that he was punished for
the transgressions of others and that he became a bearer of sin
by suffering the punishment due for sins.
In six items the truth is set forth:
1. That death came into the world extraneously to the nature bestowed upon
Adam in Eden, and was not inherent in him before sentence.
2. That the sentence defiled him (Adam) and became a physical law of
his being, and was transmitted to all his posterity.
3. That the word “sin” is used in two principal acceptations in the
scriptures. It signifies in the first place “the transgression of law”, and
in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature
which is the cause of all its diseases, death and resolution to dust.
4. That Jesus possessed our nature, which was a defiled, condemned
nature.
5. That it was therefore necessary that Jesus should offer for himself for
the purging of his own nature, first, from the uncleanness of death, that
having by his own blood obtained eternal redemption for himself, he
might be able afterward to save to the uttermost those that come unto
God by him.
6. That the doctrine of substitution, i.e., that a righteous man can, by
suffering the penalty due to the sinner, free the sinner from the penalty
of his sin, is foreign to scripture and is a dogma of heathen mythology.
The ecclesias addressed in this portion are asked to state their assent to
these statements of truth and to give assurance to ecclesias now separated, and
to help reunion.

Page 4

3. The third portion is addressed to the Birmingham Central Ecclesia. The
soundness of this ecclesia is recognised and it is asked to give a clear cut
statement that fellowship is only recognised when the truth is held. The
readiness to give the assurance when asked by Petersham is approved, and
it is urged that fifty ecclesias are now involved, and that to publish a
repudiation of the four erroneous statements and an endorsement of the six
positive statements of truth, would give immeasureable help to reunion.
4. The fourth portion is addressed to the Editor of The Christadelphian. It
expresses appreciation of the articles on the controverted subjects which
have been published, and asks support in the appeal made for reunion.
We desire to help. In making a further effort, we would like first to try to clarify
the position on the doctrines set out. Objections have sometimes been raised
that the Statement of Faith is man-made. It is man-made, but how otherwise
could we have a statement of what we believe to be the teaching of the Bible? It
is because there are great differences among people who acknowledge the
authority of the Bible that a definition of what we believe it to teach is essential.
Every lecture is, in a way, a statement and demonstration of our belief as to what
the Bible teaches. It does not consist of nothing but the words of Scripture, but of
propositions attested by citations of Scripture. A statement in the words of
Scripture could be accepted by every professing Christian who reserved the right
to attach his meaning to them. The objection that it is man-made is not a good
one.
It might be objected by some that the Statement has ambiguities, or that it
might be expressed more clearly in other language. We agree that it has the
limitations of human expression, but we believe it to be an honest and capable
attempt to set out the essential truths of Bible teaching. The author’s meaning is
well known and is illustrated in many articles and in books in active circulation to-
day. A sympathetic supporter of truth will say, “We know what is meant and we
agree with that”. As an example of such slight ambiguity, item 2 of the true
teaching of the Scriptures, which is from the Statement of Faith, if rigidly
construed, says “the sentence” was transmitted to all Adam’s posterity. The
writer’s meaning is well known to be that the defilement which followed man’s
sin, which came as the result of God’s sentence and which also became a
physical law of man’s being, was transmitted to all his posterity. Any such form of
words will make some small demand on the goodwill of the reader.
The need for definition is seen from certain terms which have been the cause
of much strife of words. One of these is the word “mortal”. As a simple opposite
of the word “immortal”, we are logically compelled to say that since Adam when
made was not immortal, he must have been mortal. But then we have at once to
define what we mean by mortal. If we say “capable of dying” it must be admitted
that Adam was such. But if we say “subject to death”, then it must be denied that
Adam was in that state when made. Hence the necessity that terms be clearly

Page 5

defined, and if ambiguous, avoided when an effort is made to set out
controverted truth. The matter might be illustrated by the word “perfect”. If a thing
is not perfect it must be imperfect; but the want of perfection may be due to some
marring element, or merely to the fact of being unfinished, which is expressed in
Scripture by the word “unperfect”. There is the imperfection of flaw and the
imperfection of incompleteness.
Some have objected to having one form of words imposed: we have heard
objections to the Birmingham Statement being used by other ecclesias. Wise
men will not insist about the use of one particular form of words if the same thing
is meant. On the other hand, when a particular form of words has come to be
recognised and accepted as stating certain truths, wise men will not create doubt
or risk misunderstanding by insisting on the liberty of saying the same thing in
words of their own choosing, particularly when grave issues are involved.
We willingly declare again our attitude as Editor of The Christadelphian, in the
hope of helping forward the present effort for reunion. We believe the Statement
of Faith to be the best compiled to set out the teaching of the Scriptures. We
accept it without reservation and believe it sets forth the minimum that should be
believed as a basis of fellowship. As concerning The Christadelphian and
fellowship, we have declared that we do not knowingly publish Intelligence from
ecclesias who do not accept the teaching set out in the Statement of Faith. We
believe that if a man or woman changes their belief it is the honourable course to
say so, and resign from fellowship. It is not less so when ecclesias do not
subscribe to the doctrines which are commonly believed among us, and which
are accepted as the basis upon which fellowship and co-operation can be
maintained.
The six statements, acceptance of which is asked, are from the
following sources:
(1) is quoted in The Christadelphian, 1937, page 553; (2) is the fifth
proposition of the Statement of Faith; (3) is from Elpis Israel; (5) is from
bro. Roberts in The Christadelphian, 1873, page 468; (4) and (6) are
statements of fact.
We have no doubt that the Central ecclesia will frankly indicate its position.
We do not doubt ecclesias in Great Britain are doctrinally sound on this issue.
We join in the appeal that ecclesias in Canada and U.S.A. should willingly re-
affirm their position if by so doing this division can be healed. It is a time for doing
all possible to remove misunderstanding, and so bringing union where there is
oneness of mind.
It is a duty to withhold fellowship when error is taught; it is a duty to extend
fellowship when “all speak one thing”.

Page 6

The following reply has been sent by the Arranging Brethren of the
Birmingham Central ecclesia:
November 17th, 1940.
To the Arranging Brethren of
Los Angeles ecclesia.
Dear Brethren,
We have read carefully your “Second appeal to the ecclesias of the United
States and Canada”, and in reply to the section addressed to ourselves, we
would say that in our judgment the four items of doctrine to which objection is
taken in your appeal, are contrary to the Truth, and the six items in which you
state the opposite view, are the Truth.
The teaching set out in these six items is embodied in Clauses III. to X. of
The Statement of Faith.
We have already declared, as you know, our attitude to these questions in
reply to an enquiry from the Petersham ecclesia, and accepting as we do the
doctrines set out in The Statement of Faith, we regard them now and have
always regarded them as the basis upon which fellowship should be maintained.
We hope that this declaration will help in your efforts to restore the harmony
among the ecclesias in America, and our best wishes are with you in what you
are doing.
With fraternal greetings,
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
G. T. FRYER,
Recording Brother.
(The Christadelphian, 1940, pages 564-566)
“A Time to Heal” Statement by North London Ecclesia
(1941)
The North London ecclesia, it will be remembered, were also disturbed by the
teaching of the brother referred to in this article and by the attitude of ecclesias at
this time to the question of fellowship. In consequence, we were ourselves for a

Page 7

period separated from the majority of ecclesias in Great Britain. Happily we later
received assurances which resulted in this separation being ended. It is therefore
with pleasure and approval that we have read the article “A Time to Heal” and we
pray it may be instrumental in restoring harmony in many places.
For the Managing Brethren,
North London Ecclesia,
GEO. S. CLARK.
(The Christadelphian, 1941, page 86)
Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne Australia (1943)
MELBOURNE.—Albert Hall, Albert Street, East Melbourne.—With pleasure
we record the baptism on March 6 of Mrs. HILDA ROSALYN BAKER. With sorrow we
report the death on Dec. 30 of bro. John McColl in his 80th year, 46 years
baptized. Our brother was laid to rest in the Springvale Cemetery. Sis. McColl
and three daughters mourn their loss, but hope in the Resurrection. Sis. Irene
Garland-Lethlean suffers the loss of her father and mother, who died within three
weeks of each other. Sis. Guenther had been bereaved of her sisters, and sis.
Stirling (Tatura) of her brother. All the bereaved have our heartfelt sympathy. Bro.
Robert Hosie has been married to sis. Edith Hedgcock, and bro. John Mullin to
sis. Marjorie Hedgcock (daughters of bro. and sis. Hedgcock of Brisbane). Also
bro. Alvan Dyer to sis. Constance Downs. We are glad that sis. P. Enever
(Bendigo) and the Wangaratta ecclesia (four sisters) are now in our fellowship.
The latter is largely the result of the position explained in the article “A Time to
Heal” which appeared in December “Christadelphian,” 1940, followed by two
circulars issued by us and interviews. We pray that the closer relationship will
strengthen the bonds of the Gospel to all concerned. Our ecclesial outing, held
on Dec. 29 at Hawthorn Tea Gardens, reached by river launch, proved to be
pleasant and edifying. On Jan 30 the Sunday School outing was held at the
Yarra Bend Reserve. Beautiful weather and surroundings made it a successful
day. Brethren Jack Izzard and Jack Smith have removed to Maffra, brethren Jack
Downs, Leon Kelly and Ian Wallace to Lah, and bro. and sis. Henry Islip to
Bowna, N.S.W., all to undertake farm work. They will all meet with local
ecclesias. We have had some difficulties with the “call-up.” Some appeals have
been allowed, some are pending, while one of our brethren so far has suffered a
month in prison. With the “call-up” extended to women for Services and
manpower, we are reminded that war-time troubles must be faced—but we do
not lose faith.—ROBT. G. WALKER (rec. bro.).
(The Christadelphian, 1943, page 136)

Page 8

Ecclesial Intelligence – Melbourne and Malvern Australia
(1950)
MELBOURNE AND MALVERN.—We rejoice to report the union in fellowship
of the ecclesias meeting at Albert Hall, Melbourne, and U.F.S. Hall, Malvern.
Following correspondence, representatives were appointed to each ecclesia, and
a conference was held on Aug. 28, 1949, to determine whether unity of belief on
Scriptural essentials existed sufficiently to enable delegates to recommend to
their respective ecclesias the desirability of the resumption of fellowship. Five
resolutions embodying recommendations were carried unanimously and were
confirmed at special meetings of the two ecclesias. The effect of these decisions
is that the two ecclesias have agreed to resume fellowship on the basis of the
Amended Birmingham Statement of Faith, after agreement upon the Editorial
articles in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN of May, 1939, “On the Nature of Man and the
Sacrifice of Christ”, and of December, 1940, “A Time to Heal”. We are very
hopeful that many brethren and sisters in country parts of Victoria who have been
separated, will also be able to enjoy fellowship together. Most have already
expressed agreement on the above basis. We are indeed grateful to God at the
successful outcome, and pray for His blessing in our united work in His
service.—FRANK R. MORGAN (rec. bro.), U.F.S. Hall Ecclesia, Malvern; ROBT. G.
WALKER (rec. bro.), Albert Hall Ecclesia, Melbourne.
(The Christadelphian, 1950, page 32)
The Truth in Australia (1956)
The following is the Basis for Union and Fellowship in Victoria agreed to by
Horticultural Hall, Balwyn, Coburg, Malvern and Moorabbin, ecclesias in June,
1953:
(A) BASIS:
1 (a) That as fellowship is generally upon the doctrines and precepts of Scripture
expressed in the “Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith”, including
“Doctrines to be Rejected”, and “Epitome of the Commandments of Christ”,
we recommend that this be the basis of union and fellowship throughout
Victoria.
(b) That we recognize as brethren and welcome to our fellowship all who
have been immersed by whomsoever, after their acceptance of the same
doctrines and precepts; and that any brother departing from any element
of the one Faith as defined in the Birmingham Amended Statement of
Faith is to be dealt with according to Apostolic precept.
(B) In applying the above basis to ecclesial life and association:

Page 9

1. It is accepted that, should the need arise for a further elaboration of
clauses 4 to 12 of the “Birmingham Statement of Faith”, the “Time to
Heal” articles shall be deemed quite satisfactory for the purpose.
2. It shall also be agreed that the basis of faith and fellowship being essentially
the determination of each ecclesia any ecclesia may, if it desires, adopt for its
own use a more explicit definition or elaboration of the Statement of Faith
without it being an addition thereto, and may restrict fellowship at its meetings
to those in agreement therewith; but this shall not affect the general fellowship
among all ecclesias who accept the basis set out in resolutions 1 (a) and (b).
3. It shall be understood that fellowship with all ecclesias in Australia or
overseas shall be limited to those who accept the doctrines and precepts as
expressed in the “Birmingham Statement of Faith” and where it is not known
by letter of introduction from ecclesias in fellowship or other reliable sources,
that visitors are in harmony with the doctrines set out in the “Birmingham
Statement of Faith”, they shall be interviewed to ascertain oneness of mind
and their relationship to fellowship.
(The Christadelphian, 1956, page 189)
Statement of Position Adopted by Horticultural Hall
Ecclesia (1957)
4 August, 1957
1.—That the Statement of Faith (B.A.S.F.) contained in our printed
Constitution be re-affirmed as our basis of fellowship, and that clauses 4 to
12 be understood according to the teaching of the “Time to Heal” articles
(published in THE CHRISTADELPHIAN in December, 1940.—Ed.).
2.—That our past practice with regard to fellowship be modified to the
following extent: That we welcome to our fellowship visiting brethren and sisters
who individually accept the basis set out in paragraph 1, subject to the following
conditions: (a) That, if they are members of an ecclesia, that ecclesia accepts all
doctrines expressed in the B.A.S.F. (b) That if their ecclesia has not adopted the
“Time to Heal” articles, such visiting brethren or sisters should urge them to do
so. (c) That, if we know of any of the ecclesia from which the visitors come who
teach wrong doctrine, they give an assurance that they will press for action
according to apostolic precept against such error. (d) That if time does not permit
of discussion of these matters with a visitor whose position is not known, he be
given a statement of our basis and practice, and be received, without prejudice,
on the understanding that he express his agreement before any further meeting
with us. (e) That if an ecclesia is proved to be wilfully and persistently preaching

Page 10

error, no member of such ecclesia shall be received by us at the Lord’s Table
without first repudiating such error and giving assurance of intention to take the
scriptural course to terminate his association with such ecclesia.
3.—That members of our ecclesia recognize the duty to break bread only with
ecclesias which accept the doctrines and precepts set out in the B.A.S.F.
together with the explanation of clauses 4 to 12 given in the “Time to Heal”
articles.
(The Christadelphian, 1958, page 143)
Comments by brother John Martin (1970)
“And so there appeared in ‘The Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 1940
articles which were entitled ‘A Time to Heal’ and brethren from Los
Angeles, realizing that the truth was now held, generally speaking,
throughout that country, and that they had no real cause for division with the
brethren in England wrote for assurances from ‘The Christadelphian’ office
that they would reject the “Clean flesh” heresy and stand by the truth, and
they received those assurances and those articles were printed in ‘The
Christadelphian’ of 1939 and 40 and brethren from Australia wrote to them
on the same score and received assurances that we did hold those doctrines
in common and there began to be put into motion the machinery of unity b/s
and the unity which we now enjoy today began right back at that time and
was only achieved because faithful brethren, humble brethren, spent hours of
their lives, sleepless hours of their lives, working steadfastly towards unity on
the basis of truth and that is being challenged today. When those
articles appeared in the 1939 and 40 ‘Christadelphian’ they of course
created a good feeling amongst the brotherhood and as I said the
machinery was put in motion for ecclesial unity.” …
“they adopted the four negative points which the “Time to Heal” article set out
- that they would deny the doctrine of “clean flesh” - and they adopted the six
positive points which spoke of the clarity of the truth. And on the basis of
rejection of error and wholehearted acceptance of truth by 1953 unity had been
virtually achieved in Melbourne.” (Cumberland, 1970, “Echoes of Past
Controversies”)

Page 11

Comments by brother John Martin at Yagoona Meeting
(May 2000)
“Roland, do you believe that God required of our Lord, OUR Lord, as an
individual, do you believe that God required of him to make an offering for that
with which he was born?”
Double-Click Icon
It sets out in four items the doctrines to which objection was taken in 1923:
2. That the offering of Christ was not for himself, and that Christ
never made any offering for himself.
Note: The above quotations from the pages of the Christadelphian speak for
themselves. Some, in an attempt to distract from the issues, have called into
question brother Biggar’s soundness (he was one of those responsible for the
Los Angeles 10 Points cited), representing him as an extremist &c. That is only
so much dirt cast into the air by clean-flesh sympathizers. Brethren, nay, entire
ecclesias could read the 10 points, understand and accept them as written and
find unity on that basis. The 10 points came into disrepute by some only after the
death of brother H.P. Mansfield and the “unity” effort began its universal or world-
wide (which is the literal definition of “catholic”) push.

Page 12

Clean Flesh False Doctrine on Rugby Christadelphian Youtube Channel

Video uploaded by the Chelmsford Christadelphians and re-uploaded by the Rugby Christadelphians


http://bereans.forumchitchat.com/post/clean-flesh-doctrine-comes-to-youtube-6647028?pid=1283360143#post1283360143

by 
JimPhillips 

benzion888 has noted a few of the "clean flesh" errors of this particular member of the Adversary’s Assembly. I would note a few more.
He begins his talk with a discussion of "metaphor." In this I commend him for his integrity. Most, who seek to corrupt the truth, usually introduce a lot of confusion in their exposition, when they mean "metaphor," but claim they mean "metonym." And it is nice, for a change, that this speaker is being so honest.
3:30 He draws our attention to some metaphors used by Jesus, such as we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and his references to the woman at the well,where, when his disciples returnee, he told them "I have food to eat of which ye know not.". These clearly are metaphors.
He then gives us half the meaning of the metaphor. That the flesh and blood represents Christ’s work. Truly it does. But the limited explanation which focuses on Jesus’ life, completely ignores any aspect of Christ’s sacrifice, which in fact, is the most significant aspect of eating the flesh (identifying with the destruction of the flesh which is the root of evil,) and the pouring out of the blood, signifying the righteousness of God, (a fact which, as he will say, makes this speaker very uncomfortable.)
4:55 He now brings us to his discussion on the literal blood, which benzion888 referenced. He first discounts the necessity of blood in sacrifice, quoting Heb. 9:22 emphasizing "almost" all things are purged with blood. Then he makes a most presumptuous argument, suggesting that when Nathan the prophet told David that his sin concerning Bathsheba was forgiven, there was no sacrifice for sin made. This, of course, would be contrary to the Law, which stated a specific sacrifice for such a terrible sin against his neighbor.
Lev 6:2 If a soul sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and lie unto his neighbour in that which was delivered him to keep, or in fellowship, or in a thing taken away by violence, or hath deceived his neighbour;
Lev 6:6 And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, for a trespass offering, unto the priest:
Lev 6:7 And the priest shall make an atonement for him before the LORD: and it shall be forgiven him for any thing of all that he hath done in trespassing therein.
To make the assumption that David would not have followed the Law, in such a grievous matter, that he would not have been extremely anxious to follow the Law in this matter, is the very height of presumption. Would such a man truly be a man after God’s own heart?
"Almost" all things are purged with blood. What was the "almost" that Paul was in reference to? Was it not the Law for the completely impoverished, who could not even afford a dove? They were permitted to offer a meal offering. David would hardly qualify as impoverished.
6:15 He concludes his discussion of David, suggesting that we should not presume to "tie God’s hands" in not appreciating how gracious God is. This demonstrates the erroneous view of fellowship we find so often in the Central assemblies. We do not presume at all on God’s graciousness. We do not judge those whose views are contrary to sound, fundamental Christadelphian doctrine. We leave that to God. We warn them.  We show them the harsh things Scripture says about them.  Then we simply withdraw ourselves from the positions we see as error, as God commanded.

IN speaking about this very class of people, bro. Roberts once observed the following. 
"Remarks.—It is impossible not to respect the spirit and intent of the letter from which the foregoing are copious extracts. It doubtless represents the mental state of a large class. There are men with almost agonizing sincerity of purpose who cannot see through the fogs that envelop the truth in an age when there is no living voice of authoritative guidance, and when the power of correctly interpreting the written Word is the only rule of conviction. It is natural to wish to think that in such a situation of divine truth on the earth, the same consideration will at the last be shown towards those who earnestly do their best in the dimness, that was shewn, on the intercession of Hezekiah, towards the multitude in Israel who "had not cleansed themselves, and yet did eat the Passover otherwise than it was written" (2 Chron. 30:18.) It may be so: God is not unrighteous or unreasonable. At the same time, in such a situation, when the truth can with difficulty be kept alive at all, it is not for those who know the truth to work by a may be. We must be governed by what is revealed, leaving the Lord to revoke the present rule of probation, or make His own allowances in its application. The rule at present, as our correspondent fully recognises, is the reception of and submission to "the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ."

6:20 Next he tells us that he will describe how Jesus used the term blood. He quotes from Matt.23:35. Exactly what his point is, I’m not clear, but I think he wants to make the point that Jesus uses the term blood in a metaphorical way. He determines somehow that neither Abel, or Zacharias, or even Jesus died from blood loss. Yet he doesn’t seem to deny that all shed blood in their death, so I’m not sure how he thinks he is sustaining his point. He then concludes that blood is being used by Jesus as a metaphor for death.
Really, this is not the case. Jesus is using blood as a metonym for death. The pouring out of blood, leading to death are related to each other as cause and effect. He tries to blur this, arguing with no scriptural proof that Zacharias was stoned to death. And further, that Jesus died of respiratory failure. All of this is unprovable. But what is not unprovable is the relationship between the pouring out of blood, and death. That is obvious from Leviticus 17:11, which he next will try to obscure.
He then takes us back to Lev. 17:11 where he informs us that the life of the flesh is in the blood, which is of course true. Then like all clean flesh teachers, he misses the point of Lev. 17:11, telling us that it is the life of Jesus that makes atonement, and not his death. But in Lev.17:11, we are told that it is the not the blood which makes atonement, but the bloodpoured out upon the altar, which brings atonement. Blood poured out upon the altar was a symbol of life poured out, or death. This is why Jesus uses blood as a metonym (not a metaphor) for death.
To clarify, a metaphor is the use of one thing for another, to which they have no relationship. For instance, if I say "the moon was as a silver galleon, gliding over the surface of the ocean," I would be using a galleon as a metaphor for the moon. In this example, "galleon" and "moon" are not in any way related to each other, but I borrow imagery to paint a picture in the mind of the reader, of the appearance of the moon on the water. But "blood" and "death" are related to each other, so they are not metaphors, or exaggerations, but metonyms, things related to each other as cause is to effect.
7:45 We then come to a point where he confesses that he is made quite uneasy by Peter’s speach on Pentecost, where Peter clearly states that Jesus sacrifice is the result of what God has ordained to be done. He then directly quotes from Clause 12 of the BASF, saying: "who were, however, but instruments in the hands of God, for the doing of that which He had determined before to be done--namely, the condemnation of sin in the flesh." He then states "I feel very uncomfortable with that." And of course he should. It was written that way so that those who could not accept Scriptural teaching, would be made "very uncomfortable" by it.
And he tries, quite unsuccessfully to explain away this great and fundamental fact. He complains that it makes God complicit, in the death of Christ, and of course He was. This is the Scriputral teaching, not only on Pentecost, but often.
Mat 26:39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.
Mat 26:42 He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Act 2:23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain:
Act 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Act 4:28 For to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel determined before to be done.
Rom 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
Phil. 2:8 Php 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Heb 5:8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;
We would presume this speaker is made uncomfortable by all these verses, not just Acts. 2:23. As well he should be. For if the flesh is in fact "clean," that is, if the flesh we all (Christ included) inherit from Adam, is not in a physically defiled and sinful state, then there can be no reason why God would have determined, commanded, willed (really desired), and ultimately delivered him up to destroy that flesh though the death on the cross.
So yes, we understand why this speaker is made uncomfortable by the Apostle’s testimony on the day of Pentecost. 9:20 Now he states that it was God’s plan to send His son, but it was not His plan to have him killed, though He knew it would happen. In saying this, this speaker takes a stand directly against Scriptural testimony.
8:40 Next he comes to the nature of the flesh. He tells us that the problem people have, is that they want to consider flesh literally. But after saying this, he goes back into his explanations as to why Clause 12 of the BASF is wrong.
We come to his reference to Phil 2:8, and he brings this up to talk about Jesus being obedient to the death on the cross. Had he thought about this for just a minute, the speaker would have to realize that in order for Jesus to be obedient to the death, he had to first have been commanded to that death. But instead of recognizing God’s role in the process, he goes on, with what he feels is the only explanation of these events. And that is, Jesus died because the Jews and Romans killed him. He says that full responsibility for the death of Jesus lies with people. Peter said, "this man you executed by nailing him to a cross." which I presume is Acts 5:30. And certainly no explanation of the death of Christ can be accurate, which denies that it was the Jews and Romans who put Jesus to death, anymore than could an explanation which leaves out God prophesying, determining, and commanding that these things should be accomplished.
11:45 The speaker asks why did the Jews not stone Jesus, as they later did Stephen? He answers that they wanted him hung on a tree, that he would then be cursed of God, according to the law. The speaker reasons that the people felt that if he was cursed by God, he would have no hope, for to be cursed by the law means "eternal death." How he knows these things, he did not explain.

But honestly, how does one consider this subject, without recognizing the Scriptural importance in having Jesus hung on the tree, to carry away the curse of the law, as so clearly explained by the Apostle Paul?  " Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, for it is written: Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree."  But he must ignore it as the implication is too clear.  And it speaks directly to the fact that Christ's death was the fundamental part of God's plan, to exhibit His righteousness.
14:20 Jesus was flesh and blood as we are, in a physical state, the author says. He says it refers to our kinship with one another, and refers to Laban speaking with Joseph. Then he goes on to say that the Bible uses flesh figuratively, a metaphor to refer to human nature. Again, we are relieved by the honesty of this speaker. How many times have I spent hours with clean flesh teachers, just trying to get them to be honest, and admit that they believe that flesh is a metaphor for human nature.
14:50 The speaker says the flesh literal, is not something unclean or abhorrent to God. He goes on to try to prove this in a most curious way. He takes us to Jesus condemning the Pharisees for their washings. He tells them that it is not that which enters into a man which condemns him, but the things that come out of a man. The things that come out of a man come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. The speaker concludes that It is sin that defiles the man.
We agree with the speaker, but the point of Jesus is altogether against this speaker’s teachings. The things the heart or flesh brings forth, are all sinful. So how can the source of the sin (the flesh, the heart of man) generate such sinfulness, and not itself be sinful?
16:00 The speaker tells us that sin is not a physical disease. Sin, he says is a moral problem.
Note that this is why the speaker can’t accept the reasons for why Jesus had to die on the cross, in harmony with the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God. If sin is only moral, and Jesus was morally perfect which we all believe he was, then how was God right and just in requiring Jesus to die the death which he died? Of course, He couldn’t be. But if sin is physical, and Jesus bore sin in his flesh, then when he died on the cross, he destroyed sin in himself. A necessary step in the plan and purpose of God, to exhibit the righteousness of God.
16:30 The speaker tells us that sin was inoperative in the life of Jesus. He says this after saying that Jesus could have sinned. It is hard, from this talk, to put these thoughts together. Perhaps he means that he had no diabolos in him, tempting him from within, and thus needed an external tempter to try him with sin. Or maybe he means something else. But I would certainly regard it as impossible for Jesus to be tempted as we are tempted, if temptation from within him was inoperative in his life.
18:20 The speaker brings up 1 Pet 2:24. He says that Peter has in mind Isa 53, and its many allusions to the atonement. He says part of that ceremony was Aaron placing his hand on the head of a scape goat. Note that this is quite a leap. Isa. 53 is the focus of 1 Peter 2:24, but neither chapter has anything directly or specifically to do with the scape goat of Lev. 16. Both Isa. 53 and 1 Pet. 2:24 speak directly to the death of the Christ. Neither chapter has anything about the setting free of the scape goat, which is not even the whole picture regarding the scape goat, of Lev. 16. The speaker says that Peter is saying that Jesus has born away our sins, just like the Scape Goat. No, Peter is not. Peter is talking about Jesus bearing our sins, in his body, to the tree, or cross. He is talking about the sacrifice for atonement from sin.
The scape goat is a part of a twofold sacrifice. Aaron was to take two goats. Both goats represented Christ. He cast lots on them, and the goat upon which the lot did not fall, was sacrificed as a sin offering. The goat upon which the lot fell, was led off into the wilderness by the hand of a fit man. Both goats represented Christ. He was first slain, as a sin offering for the people (which represented Christ’s death) and then the sins of the people were carried away by the second goat, which was through his resurrection to life, in consequent of what was done to the first. The focus of both Peter and Isaiah was the first goat. Neither one discusses the second.
He then concludes with some thoughts about intellectualism, and what he presumes to be the simplicity in the atonement, explained by a fellow, Walter Draper, of which I have no familiarity and so here I will end.
I would make one final observation, which I derived from comments by benzion888. He wrote: Clean Flesh Doctrine comes to YouTube. It is curious that there has been no other exhibition of the "clean flesh" teaching (of which I am aware) on YouTube.
Now, it is not that "clean flesh" is new or unique. Many years ago, a former Berean, now Central fellow told me that he estimated that 10% of individuals in the Central assemblies, held these views. I quoted him in a discussion I was having on a Central message board, and was scoffed at for such a low estimate. I believe the latter group, all "clean flesh" proponents themselves, were far more accurate in their estimation of Central. Still, the "clean flesh" folks generally knew that there were a large number of brethren in their assemblies who held the foundation views, and to state their doctrines openly and clearly would have had the potential of creating a division.
Obviously now, that is no longer a concern. Those who hold the true Christadelphian teachings within the Central assemblies, must now be so cowed, or so insignificant that the Balaamites and those Jezebels who preach the depths of adversarial doctrines, can boldly publish these teachings with no fear of repercussion from whatever might be left of the Antipas class among them. Ask yourself, you who would be Antipas, can you stop these false teachings among you? Or do you run from them, to your own private enclaves, fearful that they might come among you, and knowing you would be powerless to stop them? You say you fellowship with the Central Assemblies, but you have been so ineffective and powerless, that the enemy is now preeminent, and as Paul prophesied against you, the leaven has now fully leavened the lump. And they await your surrender, knowing your impotence among them.

Clean Flesh Heresy Book

Words and Meanings Defined

Words and Meanings Defined

 A Definition of Biblical Words and their Meanings.

Words can have different meanings to different people, and can cause doctrinal confusion, where it ought not to exist. It is not the words we say, but the ideas we convey, that are so important to determine a view presented. Therefore when discussing matter upon which contention might be felt, it is vital that the context of statements be examined, to determine exactly what the writer or speaker is presenting. It is “meanings” and not mere words, that we need to understand.
The subject of the atonement, being the fundamental principle of Truth that clearly separates us from the various denominations of christendom, has always been subjected to challenge. It was so in the days of the apostle John, who forthrightly declared: “many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2Jn. 7). Similarly, concerning the brotherhood in his day, Jude found it necessary to “exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). Whenever the Truth is under stress from the influence of those with pernicious doctrines, it is the duty of brethren to stand faithful to that which we have been taught. The following observations were made by Bro. John Carter in an article written in February 1958 to assist in the work of unity in Australia.

Comment by Brother Carter

WORDS are the instruments of thought and should be so used that they convey as simply and clearly as possible the writer’s meaning. There are two sources from which failure may arise: the writer may not use the best words or he may use some which have a particular meaning for himself which is not the usually understood meaning; or the reader may come to the words with his own understanding of their meaning and so read his ideas into them. There are accidental misuse of words, or some failure in clarity, where we should not make a man an offender for a word. One need only study a book like Fowler’s English Usage to realize the pitfalls in using one’s mother tongue.
It is easy to get into the way of using clichés, hackneyed phrases, slogans, which are often but slovenly ways of avoiding careful thinking. In this as a community we are not free from blame. Each controversy seems to develop a terminology of its own, and words are bandied about without regard to meaning. What, for example, does the phrase “clean flesh” mean? It depends whether it is used by a gymnasium master, a doctor, or a theologian: and the latter would find it understood in many senses. There are other words and phrases such as “constitutional sinner,” “sinner in Adam,” “condemnation”—”racial” and “adamic.” Our literature has its share of such words. They have stood for something by the first user, but it would appear that they have also more than once stood for something else to later readers, unaware of the background when first used.
In the interests of truth we need to define our terms and avoid ambiguous words. To commend the point we wish to make we quote from Bro. Roberts in 1894: “Most controversies originate in the use of terms that are elastic from their vagueness. There are terms that are suitable enough as the casual description of some passing phase of truth, but which become sources of confusion when used as a precise and leading term of definition. Technicalities, also, that are serviceable enough when they represent an understood and accepted meaning, become causes of mere bewilderment if used for demonstration in controversy. In all controversy ideas ought to be expressed in the language of literal precision. When they cannot be so expressed in a case of dispute, and when, instead of literal definition, technicalities are pressed forward in the argument, it is the indication of a mental vacuum in that case, and a cause of mere jangle to disputants... The mind is wearied and distressed by a mechanical use of Bible terms. The mind cannot be satisfied with words when they fail to convey ideas.”
As far back as 1875 ambiguous phrases caused difficulties and Bro. Roberts wrote: “He (Jesus) was a sufferer from the effects of sin in all the items of weakness, labour, pain, sorrow, death and in this sense (as a partaker with us of the effects of sin) has been described as a ‘constitutional sinner,’ or one subject to the sin-constitution of things. But as this phrase gives occasion to disingenuous cavil, it is well to discard the phrase and look at the meaning which has been stated.” (Christadelphian, 1875, p. 375).
Not many years ago we took part in a conversation where a few brethren were present. The nature of Christ was being discussed, and we reminded the brethren that if we would fully see Jesus we must remember that besides being of our nature he was sinless. We were at once informed that Jesus was not sinless, and in answer to a surprised enquiry, “What do you mean?” was told that he was not sinless, since he had “sin in the flesh.” The brother on investigation believed that Jesus had done no sin, but it took quite a time to establish in the minds of those present that the word “sinless” applied to character. We might as a parallel case ask what “sinful” means, and whether using the phrase “sinful flesh” some are not attaching to the words a meaning they do not really bear. Is it the strict antonym of “sinless”?
The phrase “sin in the flesh” has been sadly wrenched from its context and been made to do duty for several ideas. Like the words “sinful flesh” it occurs but once in the Scriptures (Romans 8:3) and then in a context where correct translation is important. To get the precise thought of Paul we must remember he wrote “flesh of sin” or “sin’s flesh.” We are being censured by a “minority” critic for something written recently on this verse. We therefore quote some words of Bro. C .C. Walker which in our judgment give the correct approach. We reproduce them in the hope that the brethren who are standing aside will weigh them well, for they are in danger of being led back to the false theories promulgated sixty years ago. Bro. C. C. Walker was answering an enquirer in 1929 and said: “It so happens that we have written upon this subject in an article on ‘The Atonement’... Rom. 8:3 is a difficult passage to understand, and the words ‘sin in the flesh’ do not, in our judgment, constitute a ‘term’ in the passage, either in the logical or grammatical sense. The main grammatical ‘terms’ in the case— the subject and predicate — stripped of all adjuncts are these: ‘God condemned.’ Sin is the object of condemnation. Write it with a capital to harmonize with the figure of personification that runs through the whole of Paul’s argument here, and to harmonize also with the doctrine of Jesus Christ concerning the ‘casting out,’ ‘judgment,’ or condemnation, of ‘the Prince of this World’ which is Sin (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). This he enunciated when he was about to offer the sacrifice for sin of which Paul is speaking in Romans 8... The words ‘in the flesh’ are the extension of the predicate, the focus of the ‘casting out,’ ‘judgment’ or ‘condemnation’.”
This answer we ourselves endorse as a definition of the “logical and grammatical” sense of the verse. We must correctly analyze a sentence to understand its meaning. The essential statement is “God condemned Sin” and if we ask where did the condemnation take place, the answer is “in the flesh”— the flesh concerned being the flesh of Jesus. We have just re-read what we wrote nearly thirty years ago in The Letter to the Romans. We have nothing to change: we might today expand some of the thoughts. The literal facts behind Paul’s words are that Jesus never yielded to any impulse to disobey God; he was always obedient; whereas all others had become servants to the flesh he was servant of God. Sin had been obeyed by all others, but Sin could establish no claim over Jesus. He shared our mortality and our temptations; he inherited the effects of sin in Eden at the beginning of the race as we all do. In the first Adam Sin triumphed; in the last Adam it was vanquished and in Paul’s powerful statement God “condemned Sin,” and at the same time justified Jesus.    — John Carter.

VARIOUS TERMS DEFINED

Physical.  The word is an adjective; i.e., it describes something (the noun). In regard to our nature it describes the actual composition of the body’ its corporeal, or material condition. The things that affect the body are described as a “physical” status. The physical laws of nature are those laws that maintain the universe, and our condition in the form it is, and which govern all our activities and applications.

Physical Change. A change in the size or form of a substance, without any alteration in the composition of its molecules, or without its producing or becoming a new substance. Thus boiling water becomes steam (a gas), but when steam is condensed it reverts to water. When Adam transgressed, he brought into being the “law of sin” (Rom. 7), and while this was a physical change through the introduction of a law, it did not change the physical elements of his body. Thus, when the stove becomes hot, it has been physically changed by heat, but the stove remains the same.

Nature. The condition of being, whether in a mental or physical identity. Thus it must be placed into a context, the subject of the matter. “Human nature” is the essential qualities of human existence. For example, Heb. 2:14-16 defines nature as “flesh and blood,” relating it to the physical body. Bro. Thomas defines nature as “flesh and blood” (see The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 501 in an article entitled Aaron and Christ, based on Heb. 2:14-16. See also Rom. 2:14, 27, 1Cor. 15:44, 46; Gal. 2:15). The sin-nature came about by the introduction of the “law of sin” which is a condition that causes us to inevitably bend towards sin. This condition requires redemption, which is available as the result of a sacrificial shedding of blood as demonstrated in the Lord’s redemption (Heb. 9:12; 13:20). By this means the natural “flesh and blood” body will be redeemed and changed to spirit-nature through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ (Heb. 9:23-24).

Flesh. This relates to both a physical material (as in flesh and bones; cp. Gen. 2:23), or to the workings of sin’s flesh (ie., the thinking of the flesh; cp. Rom. 8:12-13). The context determines the application to either one or the other. Paul describes the individual person (the “me” of Rom. 7:18) as “flesh.” Thus it relates to the natural man, the flesh and blood body that requires redemption (Rom. 8:23).

Sin. There are two principal acceptations of the word, used to describe cause and effect, and both inevitably and absolutely connected. The cause was firstly transgression against God’s Law occasioned in the disobedience of Adam (1Cor. 15:34). The second use of the word describes a physical condition of mankind which resulted from the original transgression of Adam: they are born with ungodly propensities, being the “physical law” in their members which results in transgression (Rom. 5:12, 21). In Adam’s posterity the cause is found in our ungodly physical propensities; the effect is seen in actual transgression. The first is our misfortune; the second is our crime. All that is not “of God” is sin (1Jn. 2:16).

Sin’s flesh. Describing the condition of our nature, which was caused by Adamic transgression and received hereditarily by all his posterity. Flesh became the “property” of sin in Eden, and its dominion is the reason for our conflict (e.g., Rom. 7). Adam’s flesh and blood body (a dust-created body) was not changed as a result of his transgression; however the divine sentence of death (the “dominion of death”) was imposed which brought his mortality into effect. Thus the effect of God’s sentence was not so much a change of nature as the withholding of the change of nature to immortality. Bro. Thomas defines sin’s flesh as “this body with all its constituents and laws” (Eureka, vol. 1, p. 248). The body was created with its constituent members, which were controlled by “laws.” But these laws were not designed to give the body “interminable existence.” They were designed to control the activities of the body-members. After creation, the human pair were subjected to Elohistic education, so that the brain’s function of commencing the activities of these laws was in an obedient direction. But when they mentally embraced serpent reasoning, the brain then misdirected the laws into an inordinate and forbidden direction, and transgression was committed by the members of their bodies which were controlled by those laws. This is the physical defilement which all of Adam’s posterity inherited. At death, the laws in the body cease to function, and the members of the body are unable to move.

Law of sin and death. A hereditary physical condition in which the presence of sin-biased propensities are found, and the ultimate effect of mortality is experienced. This “law,” described as the “sentence” on Adam, was the result of his transgression and became thereby fixed in his members. The “Law of Sin” is only found in mankind; the “Law of Mortality” relates to all living creatures, and brings all creation to the dust. The “law of sin in the members” is the diabolos, because it is that which causes a person to “step over the line” of divine law and instruction. In death, this law has no further effect, as the propensities (the “constituents and laws” = Eureka, vol. 1, p. 248) are unable to operate in any way. In the case of the Lord Jesus, this law (diabolos) was annulled in the sense that it was never again to be allowed to function in the body of one who had overcome its influence, and submitted to the divine procedure required for its destruction (Rom. 2:14).

Corruptibility. A physical condition relating to the deterioration of the body, and particularly when death has occurred. A body can be dead, but not corrupting (see Psa. 16:10; 49:9; Acts 13:36-37). Bro. Doctor Thomas states: “Corruption — the returning of a lifeless earthy body to its primeval dust.” (Catechesis).

Mortality.  A description of the life, and thus indicating being subject to death. Its opposite, “immortality” is a life that is continuous, based upon the nature of the Father (1Tim. 6:16). Thus mortality is a condition of terminable life (see Job 4:17; Rom. 6:12). Bro. Doctor Thomas explains the term as “an earthy body in living action, or life manifested through an earthy body, and therefore from constitution of the body, terminable life” and “Death is the cessation of the life of an earthy body.” (Catechesis).

Diabolos. Describes the ungodly propensities (the “law of the members”, BASF, #5) found in every fibre of the flesh which draw a person away from the divine will. Paul’s description in Heb. 2:14 is that the diabolos “has the power of death.” The “wages of [the] sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and “the body of sin” (Rom. 6:6) which was developed as the result of Adam’s transgression. Diabolos therefore equates with sin. Yahweh has demonstrated how He will destroy this power in the way in which He dealt with it in the flesh of His Son (Rom. 8:3), by the sacrificial death of the Lord, and in the redemption of his body. In like manner He will similarly deal with the diabolos in His people (Rom. 8:3). The diabolos is a physical condition which remains within the person until released from its power by death (Rom. 7:1; Heb. 2:14).

Sin in the flesh. Describes the physical defilement that God condemned in the Lord’s sacrifice, and destroyed in his change to Spirit-nature. While the word “sin” is a synonym for the flesh, sin in the flesh is physically activated by, and controlled by, the “law of the sin” — that is, the law that belongs to the sin (Rom.7).

Defilement. The condition of either mind or body; the first through transgression; the second through birth. Defilement needs removing, that the person might be whole morally and physically — the first is achieved by forgiveness; the second by redemption.

Brain matter. The physical element of the body which is the “thinking part of the flesh,” in which are inscribed all the impressions which assail the person, and which receives and interprets the impulses of the body. This “brain matter,” called by Paul, “one of the members of the body,” and which is included under the influence of the “law of sin and death,” commences identically in every individual, including the Lord Jesus, but its composition is changed by the influences that are received in the circumstances of life (something like the change of data in a computer chip). So the “brain matter” contains the elements which constitute the individual character of a person.

Mind. The process of the brain, which, being exercised by its own experiences, determines the actions of the individual in thought and deed. This is the “mental” (thinking) process. Evil thoughts are generated in the mind, caused by the sin prone propensities of the flesh, and defile the person (Mark 7:22-23). The “thinking of the flesh” is the origination of thoughts which gratify the sin-nature. The “thinking of the spirit” is the origination of thoughts which honour the wisdom of Yahweh, who is spirit (Isa. 11; 50:4).

Moral. The activity of the person, based on the thinking of the brain, and influenced by the impact of flesh or the spirit Word understood. This is the “moral” (active) process. Actions manifest to others the state of the mind, whether actions of faith and truth (from the spirit-mind) or those of ignorance and wicked works (from the flesh-mind).

Carnal Mind. The thinking of the flesh activated by allowing the ungodly propensities to dictate evil thoughts. The carnal mind is at enmity against God (Rom. 8:6), and must be destroyed. Once developed, it can only be destroyed by death. The Lord Jesus never allowed evil thoughts to defile his mind, and therefore did not develop the carnal mind, which in all others is part of their moral defilement. He remained the perfect manifestation of the mind of the Spirit (Phil. 2:5).

Condemnation.  The overriding principle fixed in our members that brings us under the divine sentence of mortality. The BASF clause 8 employs this term which has been defined in clause 6 as “the law of sin and death,” and in Clause 5 as a “physical law of his being”; all imposed by the divine sentence of clause 5, which resulted in our first parents becoming subject to mortality, or deathfulness; and their flesh fixed with a tendency toward sin.

Temptation. Used as the appeal to the propensities of the flesh to incite the occurrence of transgression. Used as trial, it represents an external element by which mankind is tested.

Reconciliation. The means whereby men at enmity with God might find the means to be reconciled to him. Reconciliation is the new relationship man has with God which results from Atonement in baptism (ie., by the “covering” of repented sins).

Atonement. The Hebrew word “kaphar” signifies “to cover; to cleanse; to purge” and hence relates to the divine means of removing from the pure eyes of the Father the presence of defilement or sin. God “covers” transgressions in His willingness to forgive after repentance, because the act of transgression cannot be undone.  But to “cleanse” or “purge” is necessary to remove the physical uncleanness or defilement that has been inherited by all of Adam’s posterity as the result  of his embracing the thinking of the serpent. The context determines which definition applies.

Atonement (or Sacrifice) for Nature.  The phrase indicates that our nature, now “unclean” needs to be “cleansed,” and this is done by the blood of the everlasting covenant, as affirmed in Heb. 9:23-24, etc. It does not, of itself, have any guilt factor, as there was no guiltiness by the altar or the other elements required in divine worship, but which, all of them, required the blood of atonement (purging). See Heb. 9:12; 9:23-24. When Paul said that “your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3), he used a Greek word krupto which means to conceal by covering, the essential meaning of the atonement.

“For.” A preposition used in regard to the benefits of sacrifice (i.e., a sacrifice for sin), the word is used to describe the benefit accruing to the offerer who finds himself affected by transgression, and by sin’s flesh. Such a sacrifice in regard to transgression achieves the benefit of forgiveness (1Jn. 2:2); in regard to sin’s flesh the benefit is achieved in the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23). For example, if a person is put in gaol “for burglary” it is not to develop those skills, but to redeem him from his crime. The Greek ga, can be understood in the sense “because of,” so that sacrifice is considered necessary because of the presence of sin-nature, or the presence of transgressions — the result being the removal of both conditions. Christ came to remove “the sin of the world” (singular in John 1:29, hamartia; indicating the cause of sin).

Andrewism. This term is used to describe perceived beliefs of JJ Andrew. It must be understood that all that he wrote was not doctrinally erroneous. For example, his 1882 publication “The Doctrine of the Atonement” was published and endorsed by Bro. Roberts, and contains a great deal of exposition in harmony with the atonement explanations of Bro. Thomas. JJ Andrew did not deviate from the Truth until 1894, and the deviation was on the matter of resurrectional responsibility (as evidenced in the change of the BSF in clause 24).  [In regard to the atonement, the resurrectional responsibility issue caused him to teach that all members of the human race are alienated from God at birth through possession of sin’s flesh with its lusts; that all are subject to divine wrath because of Adam’s transgression; that the covenant of baptism is the basis of responsibility, by which the curse of Adamic condemnation is removed, thereby allowing such to resurrection, and that those outside the baptismal covenant are not subject to resurrection and judgment. These teachings are erroneous, and are defined as: [1] All members of the human race are alienated from God by birth through possession of sin’s flesh with its lusts; [2] All are subjects of divine condemnation from birth; [3] Babies, including Jesus, are hereditarily subjects of God’s wrath and alienated; [4] Those baptised into the blood of the covenant have Adamic condemnation legally removed and thereby become entitled to resurrection; [5] Unbaptised persons are not subject to resurrection and judgment. The Truth is that [1] We suffer a misfortune, not a crime, through our birth, and alienation is a moral term employable where reconciliation is also possible; [2] We are alienated by ignorance and wicked works (Col. 1:21); [3] God’s wrath is against wickedness, of which Jesus was not subject; [4] Adamic condemnation, which defines our physical human condition, is only abrogated through glorification to immortality; [5] All those who know the will of God, whether they obey it or not, are subject to resurrection and judgment.

Metonymy: The use of the name of one thing for that of another to which it has some logical relation, as “sceptre” for “sovereignty,” or “death in the pot” for the poisonous contents. It has the connection of cause as to the effect. Thus literal flesh is called “sin,”  or “sin’s flesh” because it came from transgression in the beginning, and manifests the physical condition of that defiled state. It comes from the Greek meta (after) nomy (name); thus an “after name,” resulting from what the original becomes.

Synonym: A word with the same meaning as another. Gr. syn (same) nomy (name)..

Impulses: Described “physically, as a stimulus conveyed by the nervous system, muscle fibres, etc., either exciting or limiting organic functioning.” Thus an automatic reaction to the physical needs of the body.

Abrogate: Repeal, cancel, annul, render powerless. Thus the sacrificial offering of the Lord Jesus, rendered the physical diabolos of no effect upon him (Heb. 2:14), so that his victory over death and the grave was assured. The “grave could no longer hold him,” as his perfect offering had completed his victory over the flesh.

Atonement Fellowship Differences



atonement fellowship differences




The Clean Flesh Position

1. The Bible devil is personal sins only, and is a moral term equivalent to the mind of the flesh. The same applies to “sin in the flesh,” which is a moral term only and is not a physical characteristic of our nature. Mortality and “proneness to sin” are physical, but they are not a part of the Bible devil. “Proneness to sin” is caused by transgression becoming a way of life by the sinner.

2. God required Jesus to be crucified only because of our personal sins. The crucifixion was not required because Christ had any relationship to physical sin; for himself crucifixion was simply an act of obedience.

3. The crucifixion was a ritual whereby sin as a principle (represented by human nature) was ritually condemned in Christ, but it did not actually exist there. Jesus was not “made sin” by being of human nature, sin’s flesh.

4. Baptism is only for the forgiveness of personal sins.




The UnAmended Position

The UnAmended hold that a man is legally condemned for being born with human nature and that this legal condemnation will hold a person in the grave forever once he dies. Therefore circumcision and baptism are necessary to remove this legal condemnation and that this is why Jesus was baptized.The only basis revealed in the Bible upon which God can raise a person from the dead to judgment is that the person be “in the covenant” through circumcision or baptism. If the unbaptized are to be raised it will have to be upon a different basis.




The Partial Atonement Position

This theory is similar to that of the “clean flesh” position inasmuch as it teaches that sin is only transgression, and that Christ’s offering was only for those of his believers, because they are sinners in action. Consequently they teach that no sacrifice, atonement, or offering is required on account of the defiled nature we bear. The diabolos, being sin in the flesh, is thus destroyed by dying and not by sacrifice. Since they teach that sacrifice is only for transgression and not for any physical defect or need of redemption, atonement does not apply to the Lord Jesus Christ, but only to others. In this way, the theory requires that the Lord Jesus did not offer for himself for the purifying of his sin’s flesh. They explain that the offering of Christ was only an action of obedience in order that others could be saved, and that Christ was only benefited as a result of his action for others.




The Whole Truth

1. The Bible devil is a personification of the physical principle in human nature which lures and incites us to sin. Since this physical characteristic of our nature inevitably produces personal sins in every human except Christ, it is termed “sin in the flesh” or “the law of sin” in our members. God holds no man morally guilty for being born with the devil in his flesh.

2. Jesus needed to crucify his flesh in order to destroy the devil (the law of sin, called “the law of condemnation” [BASF #8] in his flesh) and redeem himself from sin nature. This is the righteous basis upon which God forgives our personal sins.

3. The crucifixion was the real condemnation of Sin by killing the devil (the root cause of personal sins) in the flesh of a sinless human — in Christ himself. This will ultimately accomplish the destruction of the devil in all of the redeemed. Jesus was “made sin” by being born of human nature so that he could condemn it to death in himself. In his crucifixion he identified with the transgressions of his people, being “made a curse for us,” and thus came under the full weight of the divine law against Sin.

4. Baptism provides for the forgiveness of past sins and is our commitment to put to death the old man of sin’s flesh; whilst providing a covenant relationship with the Eternal Spirit, with hope of partaking of divine nature.




Vine’s Expository Dictionary

— on the “Heart”

KARDIA (kadia), the heart (Eng. “cardiac” etc), the chief organ of physical life (Lev. 17:11), occupies the most important place in the human system. By an easy transition the word came to stand for man’s entire mental and moral activity, both the rational and the emotional elements. In other words, the heart is used figuratively for the hidden springs of the personal life. “The Bible describes human depravity as in the ‘heart,’ because sin is a principle which has its seat in the centre of man’s inward life, and then ‘defiles’ the whole circuit of his action, Mat. 15:19, 20. On the other hand, Scripture regards the heart as the sphere of divine influence, Rom. 2:15; Acts 15:9... the heart, as lying deep within, contains ‘the hidden man,’ 1Pet. 3:4, the real man. It represents the true character but conceals it” (J. Laidlaw, in Hastings’ Bible doc). • The word is also translated from the Greek PSUCHE (yuch), signifying “soul” or “life.”




the significance of blood

in sacrifice

FOR the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. For it is the life of all flesh; the blood of it is for the life thereof” (Lev. 17:11, 14).




Bro. Thomas, as a medical practitioner, was trained in, and was experienced in, the functions of the human body. With that background, he has written a number of expositions which clearly explain the significance, both in respect to Law rituals and in relation to the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ. His explanations, therefore, ought to be carefully considered. A selection of his explanations, together with those of some brethren who followed him, are here presented for the assistance that they provide.

“In Lev. 17:11 he saith, ‘I have given the blood to you upon the altar for a covering upon your souls; for the blood itself shall cover the soul.’ The reason given for the blood being thus used is; ‘because the soul of the flesh is in the very blood.’ The soul, nephesh, or life, is in the blood. The blood contains or covers it, as it were, and as it is a question of life or death — life forfeited for sin, the wages of which is death — that is appointed to cover sin which covers life, namely, the blood in this sense, ‘the life, or soul, of all flesh is in the blood thereof’ because the vitality of all animalsis in the blood.

Now the blood of Jesus was more precious than the life-blood of any other man. If it had not been so, it would have been inadequate to the purchase of life for the world.

The blood of Jesus was the only blood of all the generations of Adam, that had not been generated by the lust of the flesh; and which had not energized a man to the commission of sin.

The purifying or sanctifying property of the Yahweh-Name being connected with bloodshedding, as prefigured in the law, necessitates the death of him who becomes the medium of its manifestation.” Eureka, vol. pp. 278-279.

Further, Bro. Thomas also wrote the following in Eureka vol. 3, p. 666:

“The mission of the Lord Jesus Christ was to ‘destroy that having the power of death which is the devil;’ of Sin’s Flesh; in other words, to ‘take away the Sin of the world;’ and to ‘destroy the works of the devil’ — of Sin — Heb. 2:14; Jn. 1:29; 1Jn. 3:8.

This mission has been completed in himself and he is now able to extend the effects of the mission to others, concerning whom Bro. Thomas wrote:

“In being made a sacrifice for sin by the pouring out of his blood upon the cross, he was set forth as a blood-sprinkled mercy seat to all believers of the gospel of the kingdom ...” (Elpis Israel, p. 133). Such are then “justified by his blood” (Rom. 5:9; Col. 1:14; Heb. 9:22; Mat. 26:28).

Bro. Roberts adds the following: “The taking away of sin is especially associated with the bloodshedding death or offering of Christ, because that is the one element of the process of sin-taking away which implies all the rest. The death of Christ implies all the other parts of the process by which sin was covered.

The prominence of the ‘blood of Christ’ is due to the symbolism of the law which converged and terminated in him. Blood-shedding was its constant feature in the slaying of animals from the foundation of the world. This blood-shedding had two significances, related one to the other, and both declarative of a fundamental principle in the relations between God and man, and illustrated in the death of Christ, who was slain for us. The first is that death is the penalty of sin. The blood is the life (Lev. 17:11-14) and the shedding of blood was, therefore, typical of death. But it was typical of more than death; it was typical of a violent manner of death, for in natural death the blood is not shed. Blood-shedding includes both ideas. But why was it necessary that both should be thus prominent in the law? Because death had a double hold upon those for whom Christ was to die. They are hereditarily mortal because they inherit their being from one who was condemned to death because of sin: and their own numerous offences render them liable to the violent death decreed by the law. Christ came under both curses, and discharged them both by the shedding of his blood.”

(Refer “The Christadelphian,” 1873, p. 553).

It is blood that energizes a man to the commission of sin. Hence it is the “life” in the blood that provides the energy, vitality or impetus that enables the members of the body to make movements that end in acts of transgression. Paul, in Romans 7:5 referred to this movement as “motions of sin in my members,” motions or movements that lead to, or are themselves an act of transgression.

In Eureka, vol. 2, pp. 222-224, Bro.. Thomas provides an exposition relating to “The Altar” and quotes Paul in Hebrews 13:10 that “we have an altar” which, in being cleansed by the blood of Jesus is made identical with him. In explaining (p.222) the operation of sacrifices upon the Mosaic altar, he wrote: “The burnt bodies consumed into smoke were whole burnt offerings: and typified, or represented the utter destruction of Sin’s Flesh, which sin had been condemned in the flesh of the victim, by the abstraction therefrom, or The pouring out of the soul of the flesh in the slaughter of the victim. “The soul of the flesh is in the blood.” The blood covers upon the soul, or life, therefore, in pouring out the blood, the soul or life of the animal was poured out unto death; and the blood being poured out at the base of the altar, the soul was there and the altar was considered as covering it; hence the phrase, “underneath the altar the souls of the slain.”

In extending this explanation to the Lord Jesus (p. 224) Bro. Thomas further wrote: “The flesh made by the Spirit out of Mary’s substance, and rightly claimed therefore in Psa. 16:8; Acts 2:31, as His flesh, is the Spirit’s anointed altar, cleansed by the blood of that flesh when poured out unto death on the tree.” This flesh was the victim offered — the sacrifice, suspended on the tree by the voluntary offering of the Spirit-Word (Jn. 10:18). “Sin was condemned in the flesh” when the soul-blood thereof was p\oured out unto death. The Spirit-Word made his soul thus an offering for sin (Isa. 53:10); and by it sanctified the Altar-body on the tree. It was now a Thusiasterion — an altar most holy; and all who touch it are holy; and without touching it none are holy.”

In a brief, concise but lucid statement in ”Catechesis,” Bro. Thomas penned Item 51 thus: “To be “justified by spirit” is the second item of The “Great Mystery of Godliness.” The flesh in or through which the Deity was manifested was, for the brief space of thirty-three years, inferior to the angelic nature, which is spirit. It has been ‘purified’ by the sprinkling of its own blood on the cross; it came forth from the tomb an earthy body, which, in order to become spirit, and so, “equal to the angels” had to be “justified,” rectified, “made perfect” or quickened “by spirit.”

The apostle Paul wrote to the Hebrews about the significance of sacrificial blood-shedding on the part of the Lord Jesus, in ch. 9 of his epistle. In v. 7 he referred to the High Priest having entered into the “second (tabernacle) once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and the errors of the people.” Then, in v. 11 he applied these activities to the Lord and in v. 12 he described the result accruing to the Lord for so doing. “By his own blood he entered in once into the holy place having obtained eternal redemption” and he added, in ch. 13:20, that it was by the “blood of the everlasting covenant” that Yahweh brought the Lord from the dead, a prior necessity to his subsequent entry into the “Holy Place.”

To the foregoing explanations are now added these made by Bro. Roberts in “The Law of Moses,” ch. 18, “The consecration of Aaron” and the sub-section entitled, “The Sacrificial Blood” ... pp. 170-171, where he treated with the significance of the sacrificial blood in connection with the work of the Lord. “Now all these things were declared to be “patterned of things in the heavens,” which is admitted on all hands, converge upon and have their substance in Christ. There must, therefore, be a sense in which Christ (the antitypical Aaron, the antitypical altar, the antitypical mercy seat, the antitypical everything), must not only have been sanctified by the action of the antitypical oil of the Holy Spirit, but purged by the antitypical blood of his own sacrifice.”

He must therefore have been the subject of a personal cleansing in the process by which he opened the way of sanctification for his people. If the typical holy things contracted defilement from connection with a sinful congregation, were not the antitypical (Christ) holy things in a similar state, through derivation on his mother’s side from a sinful race? If not, how came they to need purging with his own “better sacrifice?” (Heb. 9:23).

“Under apostolic guidance, we see Christ both in the bullock, in the furniture, in the veil, in the high priest, and, in brief, in all these Mosaic “patterns,” which he says were “ a shadow of things to come” (Heb. 8:5; 9:23; 10:1; 3-5). All were both atoning and atoned for (Lev. 16:33). He was “purified with” ... his own sacrifice (Heb. 9:23, 12).

Bro. Roberts also made similar references in “The Blood of Christ,” p. 10 under the sub-heading of “The Shadow Institution.’ He wrote:

“Look then, at Lev. 17:11: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls (lives); for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul (life).” And, v. 14, “For it (the blood) is the life of all flesh ... for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.”

In addition to Bro. Thomas, and Bro. Roberts, Bro. Henry Sulley also understood the physical properties and functions of the human body. He wrote, in his Book “the Temple of Ezekiel’s Prophecy,” a chapter headed “The Parable of the Sin-bearer,” commencing at p. 232.

“Since impulse to sin arises from the flesh (Jas. 1:14) in response to the wiles of the tempter, the motive power of which is provided by the life -blood coursing through the arteries of the body, the only way to abolish such impulses is by death, as saith the apostle, “he that is dead is free from sin.” In this way, the source from which sin comes, its fountainhead is destroyed. This occurred in the crucifixion of Jesus, who not only destroyed the adversary in himself by dying (Heb. 2:14; Eph. 2:15-16), but will also destroy the power of sin in others (1Jn. 3:8). Refer p. 234.

“Until crucifixion, when the life-blood exuded from his wounds, there could be no release from those impulses which are aroused by temptation and which were intensely offensive to him, even causing him to resent the well-meant solicitude of Peter and say, “Get thee behind me Satan (adversary); thou art an offence unto me; for thou savourest not the things that be of God but those that be of men” (Mat. 16:23). So long as the life-blood was coursing through his veins he must always be amenable to and in conflict with temptation to sin, for only ‘he that is dead is free from sin’ (Rom. 6:7). refer p. 245.

Attention is also directed to the article entitled “The power of the Altar” by Bro. H. P. Mansfield and reproduced in the Logos publication “The Atonement,” pp. 185-186. There the writer quoted Exo. 29:36-37, and showed that the Mosaic altar required to be cleansed, although it had not transgressed. He wrote: “The blood is the cleansing agent, as it made the altar ‘holy: and not unclean.’ As the altar had to be cleansed, atoned for, anointed and sanctified, and as it typed the Lord Jesus, it is obvious that he was involved in his own sacrifice. he had to be cleansed from flesh-nature and clothed upon with Spirit-nature. And this was effected through his offering.”

In a similar article entitled “The Christ Altar,” appearing in pp. 187-190, he wrote the following: “Now look a little more closely at the manner in which the altar of Exo. 29:36 had to be cleansed. It was not by washing ... but by the shedding of blood, and that of a sin offering. The altar was thus cleansed through the shedding of blood. Whose blood was shed to cleanse the Jesus-altar? None other than his own.”






Blood is the motivating force which gives power or ability to the members of the body to respond to impulses and to thus put into action a transgression. These are the “motions of sin in (our) members” (Rom. 7:5) or “the law of sin in my members” (Rom. 7:23, 25). In that sense the blood is the life

Physical Cleansing


Physical Cleansing


"'Sin in the flesh' is physical" (Robert Roberts, Responsibility Debate #269; Reprinted in Atonement: Salvation Through the Blood of Christ, p. 113)


"Immortalization is the physical cleansing" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 42)


"'This corruptible'. This is Paul’s description of the bodily estate of the righteous resurrected, who in 'the time of the dead' stand up for judgment and change into the divine nature. Of these Christ is 'the first-fruits' (1 Cor. 15:53, 20). He was once in 'this corruptible' flesh and blood estate, from which he needed physical cleansing just as much as his imperfect brethren. For God 'hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him' (2 Cor. 5:21). We set forth the apostolic phrase, 'this corruptible,' as sufficient answer to brother Bell’s 'railing accusation' against ourselves and W.J.Y. in The Shield for February, and in his support of the 'clean flesh' heresy. It is satisfactory (negatively) to see him deliberately disown Dr. Thomas’ teaching in Elpis Israel. Thus, quoting Dr. Thomas, he says, 'The flesh is invariably regarded as unclean.' And he immediately adds, 'Yes, by Dr. Thomas, but not by God in the Bible.' Now Christadelphians know where brother Bell stands." (C. C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1922)


"To say that a man is purged, purified, or cleansed is the same as to affirm that he is justified, or constituted righteous, and sanctified or made holy it is sin that makes unclean— unclean by nature, because born of sinful flesh; and unclean by practice, because transgressors in the sight of God. The cleansing process is therefore intellectual, moral, and physical. The work begins by cleansing the intellect, casting out as it were all the devils that have established themselves there through the doctrines of fleshly men.... But the cleansing of the soul needs to be followed by the cleansing of the body to make the purification of the man complete. If the spiritual cleansing have been well done (and if the word of truth have done it, it will) the corporeal cleansing will be sure to follow." (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1855)


"'An altar of earth.' The first man of the earth was earthy. The second man was earthy until cleansed, or raised a spiritual body." (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, Begun But Never Finished, 1872)


"The doing of service is indispensable so long as human nature is 'sinful flesh.' If when believers are justified and sanctified morally and constitutionally, they were also physically cleansed, or purified from that evil principle which brings them into death and corruption, religious service would be unnecessary. When they rise from the dead, they will be free from this evil; nevertheless they will perform religious service; but it will be for nations and individuals subject to this evil, and not for themselves." (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1851)


"It has been stated, however, that this refusal to contemplate Jesus apart from his redemptive work is tantamount to an evasion of the question, and it has been asked again, ‘Did Jesus have to die simply because God willed it as an act of obedience or was it necessary for the cleansing of his sin-nature?’ Here again we have the fallacious distinction between the will of God and the law of God. What is moral cleansing but God forgiving our sins? What is physical cleansing but God changing our nature? Sacrifice is necessary for both, because God chooses to make it so." (Islip Collyer, 1898)


"The Most Holy Place pointed to ultimate glorification: physical perfection in changed bodies; in exaltation to the immortal state of the Kingdom of God. This also was the experience of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was raised from the grave and given his Father's nature; elevated to his Father's right hand in glory and power; and became the surety for others who follow him." (Keith Cook, Logos,January 1980, p. 128)


Priest and Universal Monarch. 'Joshua the son of Josedech" — Like the other names in this chapter, these are significant. Joshua is the Old Testament form of Jesus. It is Yashua in Hebrew, and signifies 'Yah's salvation.' Josedech means 'Yahweh hath cleansed,' or justified. When the Lord was raised from the grave, and given divine nature, he was physically cleansed, and set before mankind as the only means of salvation. He was 'delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification." (Rom. 4: 25). (Logos, April 1957, p. 255)







"This pointed forward to the offering of the Lord: his body saw no corruption in the grave (Acts 2:27), and, rising therefrom, his nature was changed from the state of mortality to that of immortality. Thus the type remarkably foreshadowed the antitype." (Exodus Expositor, p 400)