Clean Flesh Teachers
Sunday, 2 September 2018
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.
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)
What is the Cause of Mortality?
What is the Cause of Mortality?
According to clean flesh mortality and sin can be separated.
"Who said that mortality can only be affirmed of sin? That is totally wrong. Mortality exists where sin has not entered. Does a lobster die because of sins? Do fish die because their flesh is defiled by sin?" (Clean Flesh teacher quoted in Logos, 1971, p. 207; Reprinted in the Atonement book published by Graeham Mansfield)
What have Christadelphians historically taught?
"Mortality means sin: sin in the flesh." (AJ, Logos, 1971, p. 209)
"In our own day, as recent painful experience has made us aware, a class of believers are treading the same dangerous ground, in teaching that the flesh of Jesus was destitute of that which, in the flesh of his brethren, constitutes the cause or source of mortality." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 551)
"14. —Peter says 'he bore our sins in his own body on the tree.'—(1 Peter 2:24; Is. 53:6.) Does this mean the very acts of disobedience themselves or their effects? As the former is inadmissible, it must be the latter. If he bore their effects in his body, was not his body mortal, which is the effect of sin?" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 462)
"So here was a change in physical constitution consequent upon sin, which at last resulted in death. No man understands the balance of life even in mortality. We cannot hope, therefore, this side the Kingdom of God to understand the precise interference with the balance of life that was Adam’s before sin entered the world. All we know (because we are told it by God through an apostle) is that death in relation to man is 'by sin.'" (The Christadelphian, 1907, p. 456-457).
"For those, however, who are prepared to go a little more deeply into the subject, we commend the words of our correspondent. We are dealing with Divine ideas, and the Bible is the text-book which must define our terms. There, the word 'mortal' is only used in relation to the sin-state. It appears many times, but is mainly translated 'man'. The sense in which the word is Scripturally used is revealed in such places as Rom. 6: 12 or 2 Cor. 4: 11" (H. P. Mansfield, Logos, 1951, p. 57)
"His character was spotless; but as being the seed of the woman, of whom no clean flesh can be born (Job 25:4), and seed of Abraham, which is not immaculate, be it virgin or Nazarite,his nature was flesh and blood (Heb. 2:14), which Paul styles 'sinful flesh,' or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called 'sin'because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression. 'God made Jesus sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.'—(2 Cor. 5:21.)" (Herald of the Kingdom and Age to come, 1855, p. 51; Reprinted in The Christadelphian, 1873, 1917)
"Who shall deliver me from the body of this death'—-from this law of sin and death to which my body is subject? There is but one that can deliver, even Jesus Christ the Lord, who partook of flesh and blood that through death he might destroy this law of sin and death from the body, that is, diabolos." (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, 1852, p. 182; Reprinted in The Christadelphian 1873, p. 484)
"To say that Adam was mortal before he sinned is really to contradict this, and to affirm that death did not come 'by sin,' but only accelerated death; that the man would have died in any case, even apart from sin, being 'mortal,' but that sin caused him to die quicker. But nevertheless it is objected that sin did not physically change his flesh—as though disease and death did not involve physical change! We have shown (Christadelphian, January, p. 24) the Bible usage of the term 'mortal.' No brother has any authority to invent a new meaning under profession of superior enlightenment (Shield, February, p. 27). In the mouths of inspired men 'mortal' means 'obnoxious to death,' and they teach that man is 'obnoxious to death' by sin." (The Christadelphian, 1905)
Then, again, the man is described as being very good (Gen. 1:31); and, as Adam had not formed a character at that time, it could only be in relation to his physical make-up; but, after disobeying, he is described as knowing good and evil; therefore, the law of mortality became a fixed law of his members, flesh made mortal because of sin, and, therefore, called sin in the flesh, or sin’s flesh, the result of which is exhibited in Mark 7:21–22: Jas. 1:14: Rom. 7:18." (C.C. Walker, The Christadephian, 1914)
"clean flesh" as the idea that "there were no consequences to the condition of Adam's nature
Clean Flesh teachers define "clean flesh" as the idea that "there were no consequences to the condition of Adam's nature following his sin. It was the same as before he fell. And Jesus, too, inherited this clean flesh" (Jim Luke). In fact this a very vague and convenient (for clean flesh) definition of the clean flesh teaching. Clean flesh teachers from the beginning have denied that our physical human nature is called 'sin' in the Bible. Christadelphian teaching is that indwelling sin (Romans 7) constitutes human nature as "sin in the flesh".
Clean flesh teachers can claim
"We have been at pains to show that mortality and a proneness to sin resulted from Adam's transgression" (Jim Luke)
... and be in perfect agreement with Edward Turney, Harry Fry, A.D. Strickler, John Bell et al.
"There was no sin in the 'nature' after it had transgressed. No, what was there then? There was mortality. What does that mean? Death." (Edward Turney, The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 21, August 28th 1873)
"There was mortality. There was man destined to die; but sin was not a fixed principle in the man's flesh. However, inasmuch as I have said that Dr. Thomas has taught this, I cannot do better than refer you to the place. Elpis Israel Page 113, 3rd para." (Edward Turney, The Sacrifice of Christ, p. 21, August 28th 1873)
"Christ's own human nature did not sin; he controlled it; in every point so far as physical substance was concerned he was made like his brethren, mortal, under the dominion of death." (A.D. Strickler, Darkness, p. 84)
“to show the origin of the race, the introduction of sin into its experience and the consequent infliction of suffering and mortality as inherent conditions of human existence apart from a Divine deliverance.” (J. J. Hadley)
By "proneness to sin" clean-fleshers mean a moral condition, whereas the truth is that our proneness to sin originates from a physical condition. To deny this is to teach substitutionary sacrifice.
Why I Believe the Lord Came Forth From the Grave Mortal
Why I Believe the Lord Came Forth From the Grave Mortal
Scriptural Proofs
“For to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and living” (Rom 14:9)
Paul tells us that the Lord
died
rose
revived
Rising from death is one thing, being revived another. Paul uses two different words in the Greek.
We know that all those who will be immortalized in the future go through a multi-stage process: they rise from the grave, are judged, and will be immortalized. Why would Paul mislead us into thinking this was a multi-step process for Christ if he rose from the grave immortal?
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men" (Eph 4:8)
Leading captivity (death) captive is to have victory over death. If the Lord was literally cleansed "after the veil of his flesh was rent and before he awoke at the early dawn of the third day" (as some misunderstand brother Thomas to say) then here is an amazing thing. That time period begins after he is dead and ends before he awakes to life. This would be to say that he led captivity captive when he was captive to death! It would also be to say that the Lord had victory over death, at the very time he was in grave. And it also would be to say that he who "descended first into the lower parts of the earth" had at the same time "ascended up on high".
I would posit that Paul's timing is correct: the Lord decended first into the lower parts of the earth and then after emerging from the tomb, ascended up on high in which captivity was now his captive. So there must be some sense in which the Lord ascended prior to his ascension in Acts 1:9. Ascending to heaven doesn't necessarily mean a physical ascent.
"And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them." (Rev. 11:12)
And I believe this is accounted for:
"Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and tomy God, and your God" (John 20:17)
There are two basic views of this particular verse. One says that the Lord was gently rebuking Mary not to cling to him for his stay on earth would be short and that he would be ascending to the Father to sit at His right hand. This idea, where it has been presented, sometimes indicates that Mary was physically restraining the Lord by clinging to him as an emotional response. I don't see any proof of that in the text. Rather I see reasons why that is unlikely:
The Bible doesn't even say that Mary touched him. "She turned and said to Him, 'Rabboni!'" Immediately the Lord responds, "touch me not". Everyone who puts forth this idea assumes that Mary not only turned to him but that she embraced him. It's an assumption.
Some suggest that Mary was so overpowered with emotion that she was physically restraining him in her embrace. It seems unlikely to me, that a 33 year old man, now restored to mortal life, would find the physical restraint of Mary to be such that he had to tell her to let him go. I look first for a doctrinal teaching in the Bible text, and I don't see anything in this suggestion.
Rather than physical restraint some have suggested that the Lord's response was a rebuke that Mary's affection must be taken to a spiritual level. Again, that's just an assumption and the Lord's words don't suggest that her affection was misplaced. It seems unlikely that the Lord would choose to appear to Mary first (a commendation) only to tell her she was somehow failing to be spiritual enough.
The Lord had just emerged from the tomb. It really doesn't make sense to me that the Lord would have to tell Mary not to cling on to him for he was going to leave earth forty days later (!) to sit at the Father's right hand. That, I just don't see, could possibly be a pressing point at that particular time. The real issue to Mary's mind was that he was alive — whereas she knew he had been dead — resurrection! And when the time came for him to leave, she wasn't going to stop his ascension. The Lord had just emerged from the tomb and she had no idea he was leaving, some forty days later, anyway, so there wouldn't have been any thought of "preventing" him from doing anything. In other words, the reason given for this particular interpretation seems forced and quite out of context. There might be another reason brethren believe this. I have yet to hear it or read it.
If you look at the Greek word translated touch... in all 37 other occurrences in 32 verses it never means "cling to". It always is translated touch, "If I may but touch his clothes...", "then touched he their eyes... ", "Who touched me...". Never do these verses indicate that something was being held on to and in some cases it wouldn't make sense: "If I may but cling to his clothes" — this was a woman of faith and she knew the healing power was in touching the hem of his garment; "then he clung onto their eyes" — need I say more? From the Bible text I just don't see any reason to view this as "clinging to".
The Lord follows the command of "touch me not" with his reason: "for I am not yet ascended to my Father". The reason the Lord gives himself makes sense to me. Asthe antitypical firstfruits he had not yet been presented before the Father to be "lifted up", "inspected" and accepted (immortalized). Furthermore he was unclean having been in the grave. It is true that he had not been made unclean, according to Mosaic Law during his ministry, even though he had touched the dead. But it is also true that he had not been dead himself. And there is no reason to suppose that the Lord was not "under the law". He told Mary to "touch me not". This was very different from how he treated the disciples later that day in John 20:19-20 which is suggestive of his having been immortalized after verse 18 and before verse 19. Notice that he also, at that time, gave the disciples the holy spirit, which again indicates he is immortal and endued with power from on high (cp. Matt 27:46; John 20:22; Luke 24:49). Also note how he dealt, eight days later, with Thomas in John 20:24.
The final proof, to my mind, is that the Lord then tells Mary, "but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God". Now if the ascension he spoke of was 40 days later, why didn't he wait till that evening to tell the disciples himself? Again, is there some teaching to be advanced by this? The modern interpretation has the Lord effectively saying "Don't physically restrain me for I haven't physically ascended up to heaven. But go tell my brethren that I am going to ascend in forty days". Once again, I just do not find that a substantive interpretation.
I have never found brother Thomas or brother Roberts teaching that "touch me not" means to "not cling to". They teach it means he was mortal and unclean and that he had not yet ascended to his Father's nature. Where did the idea come from? The earliest references I personally can find are these.
It appears in The Christadelphian first in 1923 on the authority of the R.V margin. But even there bro. Walker says, "The only other 'ascent to the Father' was the ascent from human nature to the divine nature. This gives us the clue to a right understanding." It appears again in 1934. In 1940 it is repeated with references made to Rotherham and Weymouth, but again in the context of the Lord arising to Divine nature. Less detail but the "cling to" idea appears in 1950, 1965, 1972 and 1985.
It appears in The Testimony magazine in 1940 (quoting a Weymouth footnote), again in 1954, 1959, 1975 and 1976
It appears in Logos magazine first 1967, then in 1969 and 1975
It appears in The Dawn Ecclesial Magazine in 1985
So, as it currently stands, it appears to originate from a RV marginal note and has been supported by references to Weymouth and Rotherham. If readers have additional information it would be most appreciated.
"Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. And I said, Let them set a fair mitre upon his head. So they set a fair mitre upon his head, and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the LORD stood by. And the angel of the LORD protested unto Joshua, saying, Thus saith the LORD of hosts; If thou wilt walk in my ways, and if thou wilt keep my charge, then thou shalt also judge my house, and shalt also keep my courts, and I will give thee places to walk among these that stand by. Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they are men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH." Zec 3:3-8
If the Lord was to be raised immortal this prophetic enactment makes no sense. He STOOD BEFORE THE ANGEL in filthy garments and then had a change of raiment. That, in prophetic language, reads as decisively as it can.
It has been suggested by one author that the Lord was mortal his entire 40 days. This doesn't seem to be the case based on the above arguments. In addition we are told:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) (1st John 1:1-2)
What Christadelphians Have Historically Taught
"We believe, on the evidence of Romans 6:4 and other places, that the Lord was raised mortal, but 'changed in the twinkling of an eye'" (Logos, 1975, p. 375)
"As the Lord was raised mortal and then elevated to immortality, so there must be growth of the newness of life in him." (Logos, 1965, p. 31)
"He shall also quicken your mortal bodies" — Jesus rose mortal from the grave (Rom. 14:9), and thus patterned the process by which we can rise to life eternal (Rom. 6: 5) (Logos, 1966, p. 182)
Now, without question, Jesus is the first fruits of those who are to be raised from the dead (1 Cor. 15:23); and every one knows that the “first fruits” are the same in kind and in process of development as the rest of the harvest. In the case of Jesus, a period elapsed between his coming out of the grave and his change of nature; so must it be with his brethren. (Henry Sulley,The Christadelphian, 1899)
"They are living persons such as Jesus was when restored to life; and like him, waiting for the same things to be wrought in them. The risen Jesus waited to be changed, or transformed, into what he was not on emerging from the tomb. The true believers, who hope not to die, knowing that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom, are also waiting to be changed or transformed into what they are not. The position of Jesus and this remnant is identical. He had not long to wait for his change. When it did come, it was “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”—quick as a flash of lightning. This was his reviving after he rose, and by which he was made Lord and Christ." (Eureka, vol 5, p. 18)
What was the Body that came out of Joseph's sepulchre? The same that was crucified, died, and was buried there-"out of the earth, earthy." An earthy body is not consubstantial with the Father, who is Spirit. At the emergence from the tomb, there was inequality of substance between the Father and the Son. (John Thomas, Catechesis, #23)
Now, Christ was the anti-typical lamb slain, and the question is, how, and by whom was he presented in the anti-typical holiest of all—heaven itself, (Heb. 9:24), to have the offering of his mortal body accepted and endorsed by the flashing forth of the spirit-fire upon him, to change him “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye,” into a “life-giving spirit.” The history of the case affords a simple answer; He ascended to the presence of the Father, both as the victim and the officiating priest, and when the offering was accepted and consumed by the out-shedding of the spirit upon his substance, that is, when he was glorified, he transmitted the spirit to his disciples on the day of Pentecost. This is Peter’s account of it on the occasion: “Being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath shed forth this which ye now see and hear,” (Acts 2:33.) Again, when accounting to the wonder-stricken crowd for the miraculous cure of “a certain man, lame from his mother’s womb,” he says, “Why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power, or holiness, we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers hath glorified his son, Jesus, ” (Acts 3:12–13). From this, it would follow that Jesus was not glorified till after his ascension, and that. therefore, our correspondent’s assumption, that he came forth from the grave in spiritual nature, is unfounded. (The Christadelphian, 1867)
He is no longer simply the earthborn body that was crucified and buried. After he came forth from the tomb, which of itself under the law was defiling to the party buried, and to any living person who should touch him, Jesus was also upon the third day "justified by spirit," or "made perfect," in ascending by the power of the Spirit from the earthborn nature, to consubstantiality of substance with the Father, "who is spirit" (John 4:24). Thus freed from all earthiness, he became spirit, upon the principle he had laid down in his discourse to Nicodemus, that "that which has been born out of the Spirit is spirit" (John 3:6). Hence, the perfected Jesus is the Spirit-Nucleus of the Perfect Man to be revealed, or apocalypsed. (Eureka, volume 5, p. 233)
To say that Christ was “energised into immortal vigour from the very tomb in which he lay,” is merely an unproved and unprovable assertion. Two things at least suggest the contrary, viz., the saying, “touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,” and the fact that Christ was the antitypical sheaf of first fruits of the harvest, which was wont to be waved before the Lord on the morrow after the Sabbath, with the object of its being accepted ( Lev. 23:10 , 11 ). This suggests a similar thing on the part of the antitype. We know the morrow after the Sabbath answers fittingly to the day on which Christ rose from the dead. Following that, his offering or presentation before the Father, and his acceptance, signified by his being “changed in a moment” (as his finally accepted brethren will be), are all things first implied in the type, secondly in what Christ said to Mary, and thirdly in what will take place in the case of his brethren, of which he must needs be the example. 12–13.—The “mortal flesh” in which the life of Jesus is yet to be manifested, describes equally the case of the resurrected brethren and the living brethren contemporary with that event. For it is simply a case of this mortal alive, or this mortal reproduced from the grave, that must put on immortality. (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1889)
If the same kind of body did not come forth that was buried, it would not be Resurrection, but only surrection, as in the case of the first man. Jesus "rose AGAIN" (1 Cor. 15:4); his coming forth was therefore resurrection. He rose again the same Jesus that was buried, only that instead of being dead, he was alive again. He was buried under the curse of the law, which "made him a curse for" our benefit (Gal. 3:13): he came forth while that same law was in force and operation. His coming forth upon the arena of his execution did not relieve him from the curse of that law, which sentenced him to continuous and everlasting death; so that, if they could have recaptured him, the Mosaic authorities would doubtless have returned him into death. That law regarded him as dead, and its authorities refused credence to the report, that he had come to life. After he had come forth he saw Mary, a Jewess, who mistook him for the gardener, so like other men did he appear. Having convinced her of her error, he checked the impulse of her affection by saying to her, "Touch me not!" It was defiling for Jews to touch a thing declared to be unclean by the law. Any thing from the grave was enacted to be unclean, in reference to him who should come out of the tomb, until that he should be 'revived" (Rom. 14:9) or "made a quickening spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). Christ was "the end of the law," the substance or body of the shadow (Rom. 10:4; Col. 2:17); its lines concentred in the things pertaining to his body. The interdict forbidding it to be touched was indicative of its not then having been changed into spirit; and that it was still earthy and inferior to the substance of the Father. He gave the reason why he forbade his body to be touched; "for," he said, "I have not yet ascended to my Father". No one might touch him until that ascent had taken place. It did not occur till after Mary left him; but it had doubtless taken place before his walk with Cleopas and another to Emmaus; for they appear to have travelled very sociably together. The swallowing up of every particle of the earthiness of an earthy body, is an instantaneous operation; the work of "a moment, or the twinkling of an eye" (1 Cor. 15:51,52). It was one of the events that transpired in relation to Jesus on the third day. He "rose and revived" on the third day (Rom. 14:9). He not only rose on the third day, but he revived on the same day. Rising is one thing, reviving is another; and two different words are used by the apostle to express the different ideas." (Eureka, vol 5, p. 236-237)
Such was the model, or "Heavenly Man," whose image, intellectual, moral, and material, all must bear who may become the future constituents of the Perfect Man, who comes upon the world as a thief. I have been rather particular in the exposition of the things connected with the body of Jesus, which being made subjectively to know orach chayim, "the way of lives," became "the Way" (John 14:6) illustrative of the manner in which all his brethren will experimentally pass from the humiliation of death to the exaltation of eternal life and glory. They, as he, come forth from the unclean house of death earthy, and, therefore, unclean bodies. (Eureka, vol 5, p. 238)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)