banner

Last Updated on :
Saturday, November 22, 2014

 

sp spacer

Contents | Redeeming The Race - God's Provision For The Total Abolition Of Sin And Death

spacer

The Purifying of The Heavenly


spacer
spacer
spacer
spacer


"The word 'sin' is used in two principle acceptations in the Scripture. It signifies in the first place 'the transgression of law'; and in the next it represents that physical principle of the animal nature which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust ... Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled 'sinful flesh,' that is, 'flesh full of sin'. . . Sin, I say, is a synonym* for human nature." - Elpis Israel, pages 126-127

[*Synonym: "One of two or more words having the same meaning."]

 

Illustrating brethren Thomas' and Roberts' robust and uncompromising use and exposition of terms scripturally applied to Christ that moderns, for "unity," shy away from or try to water down and explain away. These excerpts could be multiplied many-fold, and the quotation of a fuller context would make them even more powerful. (We suggest they all be looked up and studied). But surely these given here are sufficient to show without possibility of contradiction their consistent teaching: sound Christadelphian teaching from the beginning. A few by later writers are given to show that, in the early days at least, the same sound teaching was preserved and insisted on. It is deeply saddening that the present outlook is very different. All quotations from the Christadelphian through 1898 are by Brother Roberts personally, except where they are specifically attributed to brother Thomas

 

"Made Sin"-2 Cor. 5:21

 

"To be 'made sin' for others (2 Cor. 5:21) is to become flesh and blood."- Eureka 1:247

"Christ was 'made sin' in being born into a sin- constitution of things." Christadelphian, 1898:390

"Was Christ 'made sin'? Brother Roberts' answer: "Yes." - Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, No. 93

"Sin is a synonym for human nature ... God made him to be sin for us ... Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." - Elpis Israel, page 127

"Christ 'made sin,' though sinless, is the doctrine of God." - brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873: 362

"It is testified that he was 'made sin for us' (2 Cor. 5:21). As he was not of sinful character, this could only apply to his physical nature, drawn from the veins of Mary." - Christadelphian, 1869:83

"God sent forth Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence, he was "made sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). - Christadelphian, 1873:402

"This perishing body is 'sin'...'Sin,' in its application to the body, stands for all its constituents and laws." - Eureka 1:248

"Was he not made sin in being made of a woman who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?" - Christadelphian, 1873:463

"He (Jesus) did no sin, but he was physically 'made sin for us who knew no sin.' He was sent forth 'in the likeness of sinful flesh' that sin might be condemned in him." - Christadelphian, 1898:343

 

 

Later Writers

 

"God hath made him to be sin (2 Cor. 5:21) ... Partaking thus of the flesh, he was 'this corruptible,' though in character sinless, and so needed cleansing and redemption as much as his brethren... Hamartia means 'sin,' and not 'sin- offering.' We speak from a careful comparison of all the passages in the N. T. and LXX. In all the 170 or more occurrences, in the N.T. it is never rendered 'sin- offering." - Brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1922:222

"What we Christadelphians call 'pernicious teaching' in this matter is the teaching taught by brother Bell ... The 'poor and illiterate' who have brother Bell's sympathy, can rest quite content with the text of 2 Cor. 5:21 as it stands in AV and RV. It is such as brother Bell who makes things hard for them by altering the English translation of this passage without any justification whatever, in order to support their theory ... 2 Cor. 5:21 cannot be rendered 'made to be a sin offering' without doing violence to the meaning of the word hamartia and forcing on it a meaning it will not bear." - brother Young, Christadelphian, 1922:310

 

And the following by brother Carter, at a time when he was trying to persuade the Bereans to join Central. Brother Carter is answering a "Fraternal Visitor" (Suffolk Street) article that taught that "Christ was not 'made sin' until he hung upon the cross." Brother Carter says "The Truth is only maintained by faithful contention, and however much we dislike contention, earnest men do not hesitate to contend for the Faith ... It has been sound Christadelphian teaching from the days of Dr. Thomas that Jesus was 'made sin' by being born a member of the human family. . . Jesus by birth was "made sin". . . If he was not related to sin, either in NATURE or character, then a grave injustice was done when he was allowed to suffer on the cross, and there was no declaration of God's righteousness ... The publishing of such teaching reveals again the absence of that unity between the two sections without which union is not possible." - Christadelphian, 1940:40

 

We also call attention again to the 1913 and 1915 articles from the Christadelphian reprinted in the Jan. 1979 Berean, pages 28-31: very clear, positive and conclusive on this passage. Sound brethren of the past never dreamed of trying to inaccurately and unjustifiably render this "sin-offering."

"Sin the Flesh" -Rom. 8:3

 

"'Sin in the flesh' will ultimately be the subject of justification through the blood of Christ." - brother Roberts' answer in Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, No. 111

"Question: 'What do you mean by "sin in the flesh"'?

Answer: David by the Spirit says (Psa. 51:5), 'I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me' ... 'Sin in the flesh,' which is Paul's phrase, refers to the same thing. It is what Paul also calls 'Sin that dwelleth in me' (Rom. 7:17), adding, 'I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.' Now, what is this element called 'uncleanness,'sin,' 'iniquity,' etc? ... There is a principle, element or peculiarity in our constitution which leads to the decay of the strongest and healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin; and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things. Because the invisible, constitutional, physical inworking of death in us came by sin, that inworking is termed 'sin.' It is a principle of weakness and uncleanness and corruption. For this reason, it is morally operative; for whatever affects the physical affects the moral. If no counterforce were brought into play, its presence would subject us to the uncontrolled dominion of disobedience, thru the constitutional weakness and impulse to sin ... The body of the Lord Jesus was this same unclean nature in the hand of the Father." - Christadelphian, 1874:88

"That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil," or "sin in the flesh." - Elpis Israel, page 99

"'Become sin for us', 'sin condemned in the flesh', 'our sins borne in his body upon the tree' -these things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of that physical principle styled 'Sin in the flesh.'" -brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873:361

"Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." - Elpis Israel, page 128

"Sin had to be condemned in the nature that had transgressed. For this cause, he was made a little lower than the angels, that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is, the diabolos, or elements of corruption in our nature inciting it to transgression, and therefore called 'Sin working death in us.'" - Eureka 1:106

"Christ's death was a representative condemnation of sin in the flesh ...'Sin in the flesh' is that peculiarity in its physical constitution that inclines it to self-gratification, regardless of the law of God ... At our baptism we symbolically identify ourselves not only with death but with all that has been actually accomplished in Christ in his death, burial and resurrection. But the results are not real, except as to God's favor, therefore it is as unreasonable to speak of our being actually justified from 'sin in the flesh' as it would be to claim we are actually clothed with the new body which Christ attained at the resurrection." - Christadelphian, 1895:24

"What is that which has the power of death? ... the 'exceedingly great sinner SIN' in the sense of the 'Law of Sin and Death' within ALL the posterity of Adam without exception. THIS, then, is Paul's Diabolos." - Eureka 1:249

"Sin in the flesh is hereditary; and entailed upon mankind as the consequence of Adam's violation of the Eden law." - Elpis Israel, page 128

"Paul had to say, 'Sin dwelleth in me ... I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind'... Sin, as disobedience, arose in Adam and Eve's case from a wrong opinion concerning a matter of lawful desire, and not from what Paul calls 'sin in the flesh.' It BECAME sin in the flesh when it brought forth that sentence of death that made them mortal ... and implanted in their flesh a law of dissolution that became the law of their being. As a law of physical weakness and death, it necessarily became a source of moral weakness. That which originated in sin became a cause of sin in their posterity, and therefore accurately described by Paul as 'sin in the flesh.'" - Christadelphian, 1898:343

"That physical principle or quality of the flesh styled 'indwelling sin'." - Elpis Israel, page 137

"What is meant by 'devil' in Heb. 2:14 and 1 John 3:8? Answer: Sin in the flesh." - Good Confession, page 120

"The devil is the scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh." -Declaration, prop. 23

"Him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil (or sin in the flesh)." -Instructor, question 55

"Sin in the flesh is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death." -Christendom Astray, Lecture 7, page 162

"The Law of Sin pervades every particle of the flesh." - Elpis Israel, :137

"Sin-in-the-flesh is only the root principle that leads to the various forms of diabolism. All these forms are in harmony with the root ... Judas was a devil, through the action of sin-in-the-flesh. He hanged himself. That form of sin-in-the-flesh was gone, but sin-in-the-flesh survived in the world. The devil that imprisoned the Smyrnean brethren was a form of sin-in-the-flesh. That form passed away, but sin-in-the-flesh continues in the world. When the devil is bound for 1000 years, it is that form of sin-in-the-flesh which exists in the organized governments of the world that is bound; but sin-in-the-flesh remains an ingredient in human nature during all the 1000 years, until flesh and blood ceases to exist on earth." - Christadelphian, 1898:201

Note that brother Roberts uses "sin-in-the-flesh" WITH HYPHENS 8 times in this short answer. A later leader was gratefully lauded because he "got rid of (brother Roberts') hyphens for us" - presumably a major accomplishment, for it permitted the union of divergent views on the Sacrifice of Christ. Brother Roberts does not always use the hyphens, but he usually uses the expression in a hyphenated sense (that is, as a unit). So does brother Thomas, as will be noted.

Later Writers

 

"Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures. It has a physical as well as a moral application." -Brother Boulton, "Hebrews," page 181

"The apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh: 'body of sin' ,'Sin wrought in me,' 'Sin revived', 'Sin beguiled me', 'Sin working death in me', 'sin that dwelleth in me', 'Law of sin in my members.' Sin as spoken of in these verses must necessarily be considered as something different from actual transgression. It is 'sin' within that leads to sin in action." -brother Boulton, "Hebrews," page 182

 

Moderns seeking compromise have been very squeamish about facing up to the reality of sin-in- the-flesh. They miss completely the fundamental point that, as brother Thomas says, God could not have ACTUALLY (but only ritually) condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus if it had not BEEN there. Their arguments lead logically to the orthodox substitution theory that it was merely someone else's sins that were "ritually imputed" to Christ, just as in the case of the animals: that is, that Christ was just another shadow or type or symbol.

 

"Sinful Flesh"-"Sin's Flesh"-"Flesh of Sin" - Rom. 8:3

 

"Children are born sinners or unclean, because they are born of sinful flesh; and 'that which is born of the flesh is flesh.' This is a misfortune, not a crime." - Elpis Israel, page 129

"How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, 'made in the likeness of sinful flesh,' if he had not died for himself as well as for us? Brother Roberts' answer: He could not." - Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, no. 715

"'Sin' is a word in Paul's argument which stands for human nature."' - Eureka 1:247

"'Sinful flesh' is a generic description of human flesh in its total qualities." - Christadelphian, 1895:24

"Sinful flesh was laid upon him." - Elpis Israel, page 99

"Diabolos is a very fit and proper word to designate the law of sin and death, or Sin's flesh." - Eureka 1:249

"Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin." - Elpis Israel, page 128

"Jesus was the sin-nature, or sinful flesh of Adam, that sin being THUS laid upon him, he might die for it." - Christadelphian, 1873:407

"Joshua (in Zech. 3:3-4) clothed in filthy garments represents the Christ ... clothed with the 'flesh of sin,' in which, Paul tells us, 'dwells no good thing.'" - Eureka 1:58

"Jesus was not less 'sin's flesh' than we." - Christadelphian, 1873:363

"'He sent His Own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh' ...Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there." - Elpis Israel, page 128

"It (the body of Jesus) was... that ... styled by Paul 'flesh of sin' in which, he says, 'dwells no good thing.'" - Eureka 1:106

"His nature was in all points like ours: 'sin's flesh' in which dwells no good thing... his flesh... cleansed by the blood of that flesh when poured out unto death." - Eureka 11:224

"Flesh and blood ... This is called 'sin' or 'Sin's flesh' because it is what it is in consequence of sin, or transgression." - Eureka 1:247

"As the Dead One... he was Sin's Flesh crucified, slain and buried; in which by the slaying sin had been condemned; and by the burial, put out of sight." - Eureka 11:124

"His nature was flesh and blood, 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 the flesh became its law as the consequence of transgression." -brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873:501

"Jesus was a man in the flesh common to all mankind, which is Sin's flesh." - Eureka 11:624

"This perishing body is 'sin.'" - Eureka 1:248

"'I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me' (Psa. 51:5). This is nothing more than affirming that he was born of sinful flesh." - Elpis Israel, page 128

"In what sense did Christ come in sinful flesh? ... Rom. 7, immediately preceding, supplies the sense of the words 'flesh of sin' used in Rom. 8:3. Gal. 5, and all N.T. allusions to the subject, teach that the flesh of human nature is a sinful thing." - Slain Lamb, page 19

In the context, brother Roberts strongly defends the translation "sinful flesh" against the more literal (but, as to English meaning, less accurate) "flesh of sin." RV retains "sinful flesh," like AV, though recognizing in the margin that the literal Greek is "flesh of sin."

 

The Diabolos

 

"What is that which has the power of death? ... It is the 'exceeding great sinner Sin,' in the sense of the 'Law of Sin and Death' within all the posterity of Adam, without exception. THIS is Paul's diabolos." - Eureka 1:249

"What is meant by 'devil' (diabolos) in Heb. 2:14 and 1 John 3:8? Answer: It means sin in the flesh." - Good Confession, question 120

"'That through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil (diabolos),' or SIN IN THE FLESH." - Elpis Israel, page 99

"The release began with himself. He destroyed that hold which the devil had obtained in himself through extraction from Adam ... The devil was not destroyed out of Christ. He was destroyed IN him. We have to get into Christ to get the benefit. In him we obtain the deliverance accomplished IN HIM." - Christadelphian, 1875:375

"The devil (diabolos) is the scriptural personification of sin in the flesh." - Declaration, prop. 23

"'He also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is, the diabolos,' or elements of corruption in our nature inciting it to transgression, and therefore called 'Sin working death in us'." - Eureka 1: 106

"Him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil (or sin in the flesh)." - Instructor, question 55

"'He that committeth sin is of the diabolos, for the diabolos: sinneth from the beginning! All this is perfectly intelligible when understood of Sin's flesh." - Eureka 1:249

"Sin in the flesh is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death." - Christendom Astray, Lecture 7, page 172

"Diabolos is a very fit and proper word to designate Sin's flesh." - Eureka 1:249

 

Later Writers

 

"'The Devil is a scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh, in its several phases of manifestation ...' This old Christadelphian definition (Declaration) is palpably true, and does not need revising. And no exception to its application can be made to Heb. 2:14. Dr. Thomas wrote upon the subject with a grasp and lucidity that were almost apostolic -

"Sinful flesh was laid upon him that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, or sin in the flesh (Heb. 2:14)." - Elpis Israel, page 99

Yes, the 'Devil' that had the power of death is 'Sin,' and Christ has destroyed him IN himself individually, and will yet destroy him from the earth." - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1913:541

"Our Sins in His Own Body"- 1 Pet. 2:24

"Our Iniquity Laid on Him"- Isa. 53:6

"'Iniquities laid on Him'... This is a figurative description of what was literally done in God sending forth His Son made of a woman ... This was 'laid on' Jesus in his being made of our nature." - Christadelphian, 1873:400

"The flesh was the 'filthy garments' with which the Spirit-Word was clothed (Zech. 3:3) the 'iniquity of us all' laid on him; the 'soul made an offering for sin' (Isa. 53)." - Eureka 1:108

"'Our sins laid on him'... The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type; the real putting of sin on the Lamb of God in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance." - Christadelphian, 1873:462

"The filthy garments of flesh, styled his 'iniquity'." - Eureka 11:19

"If our sins were laid on him in the same way as on the animals (ceremonial imputativeness), where is the substance of the shadow?" - Christadelphian, 1873:462

"If the principle of corruption had not pervaded the flesh of Jesus ... sin could not have been condemned there, nor could he have borne our sins 'IN his own body'."- Eureka 1:203

"Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling IN his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom. 8:3), came to John as the 'Ram of Consecration,' that his inwards and his body might be washed." - brother Thomas, Christadelphian, 1873:501

 

 

Later Writers

 

"He kept himself from his 'iniquity' (Psalm 18:23). He possessed perfect knowledge of any thought or impulse arising from the flesh contrary to the purpose of his Father, thus leading him to view his temptations as 'iniquities' more numerous than the hairs of his head (Ps. 40:12). While the 'iniquity' that took hold of him was in his flesh, in which 'dwelleth no good,' the character he manifested was perfect." - brother Sulley, Christadelphian, 1921:499

"He could say 'There was no soundness in his flesh' (Ps. 38:7) because he himself said the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:73). This testimony is amplified by the Spirit in the apostle Paul thus, 'In me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.' Jesus also could say- 'There is no rest in my bones because of my sin' when realizing fully, as he did, that there could be no freedom from temptation so long as he was of flesh and blood nature." - brother Sulley, Christadelphian, 1921:500

 

 

"First For His Own Sins" -Heb. 7:27

 

"He offered first for himself: he was the first delivered. He is "Christ the Firstfruits.' He obtained eternal redemption IN and FOR himself." - Christadelphian, 1875:139

"Christ's sacrifice was operative on himself first of all." - Law of Moses, chapter 11, page 90

"There is no doubt Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering for himself." - brother Roberts, Debate 290.

"As the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary he should offer for himself." - Christadelphian, 1896:341

"He did these things ('was made perfect', 'was saved from death,' 'obtained redemption') for himself first ... for us only as we become part of him." - Law of Moses, chapter 18, page 173

"Then he offered for himself as well as for us? Brother Roberts' answer: Certainly." - Debate 716

"As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first." - Christadelphian, 1875:375

"From Paul's statement (Heb. 7:27) it follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under Adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh." - Christadelphian, 1873:405

"The sacrificial work ... for himself, that it might be for us." - Law of Moses, chapter 18, page 177

"He offered for himself first, by reason of his participation in Adamic mortality." - Christadelphian, 1873:555

"It was 'for us' that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself...'He was made sin for us who knew no sin,' and does not sin require an offering?" - Christadelphian, 1875:139

"If Christ's offering did not comprehend himself, how are we to understand the statement of Paul in Heb. 7:27?" - Christadelphian, 1873:466

"Though personally sinless, he was by constitution condemned, and had therefore to offer for himself and his brethren." - Christadelphian, 1873:405

 

Later Writers

"Heb. 7:27 says plainly that Jesus offered for his own sins." - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1902:148

"'This he did once... offer ... first for his own sins' (Heb. 7:27) ... God required the Lord Jesus to lay down his life in sacrifice, and through that 'one offering' he was himself redeemed from dead as the 'firstfruits'." - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1910:538

"That Christ had to offer for himself is testified in Heb. 7:27. The reason is revealed: that he might himself be saved by his own blood (Heb. 13:20; 5:7)." - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1910:547

"Who 'offered up himself'? Jesus. Who did this 'once'? Jesus. What is 'this' that he did once? 'Offered up sacrifice, first for his own sins, then...'" - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1913:339

"His sacrifice was 'first for himself, and then for the people' (Heb. 7:27) ... To say that it was not for himself is to contradict the Word of God, and to take a step at least toward the doctrine of the Antichrist ... The salvation was by 'the blood of thy covenant' (Zech. 9:11), by which both the King' himself and his 'prisoners of hope' are brought again from the dead.' These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated, and should not be now." - brother Walker, Christadelphian, 1921:313

See also The Berean, February, 1979, pages 61-64.

 

We quote brethren Thomas and Roberts profusely and unashamedly because the Christadelphian Body has had this elementary first principle matter firmly settled in its mind for over 100 years, based on the providential labors of these two brethren. The Body has always believed that these brethren soundly expounded the Truth concerning it. We need no ever-learning, never-learning, long- since-repudiated "new" theories.

Let us be very thankful that these things were fought out by sound brethren over 100 years ago, and sound brethren ever since have always accepted them. We feel very strongly that the brethren and sisters should be made clearly aware that the "new" theory that Christ was merely another type and ritual, and did not have to offer for himself, is a direct contradiction to brethren Thomas and Roberts, and was denounced by them as a fatal error.

Ask those who teach differently from this: "Do you think and claim you are teaching in harmony with brethren Thomas and Roberts, and what has been considered sound doctrine from the beginning? Or do you recognize and acknowledge that you are teaching things that have been denounced by brethren Thomas and Roberts and sound Christadelphians, for 100 years?"

Bring the issue clearly into the open. Were brethren Thomas and Roberts right or wrong? Is it a question of interpreting them, or is it an issue of repudiating them? Do they profess to agree with them, or do they confess they disagree with them? This must be clarified first. Those who disagree with brethren Thomas and Roberts are often very coy about revealing this openly. They very much prefer to make a big show of "going right back to Scripture," brushing aside brethren Thomas and Roberts without openly repudiating them. They want to ignore 130 years of Christadelphian belief and teaching, and pretend to start out fresh, as if Christadelphian history did not exist at all, and the subject had never before been considered.

Brethren Thomas and Roberts were not inspired, nor do we quote them as such. But for over 100 years sound Christadelphians, after exhaustive scriptural investigation, have decided that brethren Thomas and Roberts were right on the Sacrifice of Christ, and that they providentially delivered us from the substitutionary orthodoxy of Renunciationism and Bell-Stricklerism.

 


spacer