The Christadelphian October 1906, C.C. Walker

Answers to Correspondents

The Condemnation of Sin in the Flesh

Would you please say briefly just what you understand by the apostolic allusion of Rom. 8:3, “Condemned sin in the flesh”?

Answer.—In the first place you must take notice that it was “God” who “condemned sin in the flesh.” And next, that it was in the sacrifice of Christ. Jesus truly resisted and repudiated sin throughout his life; but that does not completely cover the idea here. Obedience unto the death of the cross, followed by the Father’s raising him to life eternal for his righteousness’ sake is the essence of the matter. In this way sin was “condemned,” “put away,” “cast out,” “destroyed,” and Jesus was saved by God. The verb in Romans is Katakrino, to judge down, condemn, and is used especially of condemnation to death, both in connection with the people in relation to Jesus, and of sin in relation to Adam. In Rom. 8:3, although it involves the putting to death of the Lord Jesus, and that with the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, it is not Jesus that is condemned by God, but sin in him, for death was only allowed a very brief “dominion over him.” In Heb. 2:14, the verb “destroy,” which is obviously explanatory of “condemn” in Rom. 8:3 is katargeo, from kata intens. and argos inactive, to render quite inoperative, to make of none effect. Thus “through death” God caused the Lord Jesus to prevail against “the devil that had the power of death,” that is “sin,” in his resurrection to life eternal. Thus the body of sin was destroyed (Rom. 6:6). And this is symbolically shown forth in baptism into Christ’s death. “Meats for the belly and the belly for meats, but God shall destroy both it and them” (1 Cor. 6:13). “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death” (1 Cor. 15:26). In all these places the same word, Katargeo, is used, and indicates in conjunction with other scriptures what is meant by the apostolic word “condemned sin in the flesh.”

“Adam and Christ”

Wrong Theories Resisted Ten Years Ago

In connection with the controversy which has agitated many ecclesias in the Australasian Colonies during the last year or two, on the nature of Christ, it seems not inappropriate to reproduce some remarks of the late Editor of the Christadelphian, made just over ten years ago, after meeting one who had introduced error on the subject.

The subjoined remarks by brother Roberts indicate just what is now objected to by the Christadelphian, wherever and with whomsoever the doctrine defined, or certain ingredients thereof, may be found. As to persons, we wish none of them anything worse than that they may be saved in the day of Christ. To this end it is necessary for us all that we “keep the truth,” both in doctrine and practice.—Ed.

“At one or two points (on the journey through the Colonies), some had been turned aside by the sophistries of one George Cornish, who, while holding the truth otherwise, denies the sacrifice of Christ in maintaining that Christ died, not as God’s arrangement for the forgiveness of our sins, but ‘because he was killed.’ This is the old Panton Ham Bristol theory of the death of Christ.

“It is reached in the case of the truth, through a plausible theory to the effect that we do not inherit death from Adam by any physical law, but merely by denial of access to the tree of life; that the sentence of death took no effect on Adam’s body, and therefore is not in ours: that, in fact, we are the ‘very good’ and uncursed Adamic nature that God formed from the ground in the first case; that our nature is not an unclean and sinful nature; that there is no such thing as sin in the flesh, or sinful flesh, or ‘sin that dwelleth in us.’

“Having sought to establish such a very good case for human nature, it easily opens the door for a Christ of immaculate nature, notwithstanding its having to admit that he was made in all things like to his brethren, and partook of their identical nature. It is the old doctrine of Renunciationism in a new form. It is worse than Renunciationism. Renunciationism, while denying Christ as the bearer of sin for its abolition through death and resurrection, did at least admit that the race was under condemnation. But this ‘ism’ denies the very first fact of the gospel testimony, that ‘By one man sin entered into the world. and death by sin, and so death hath passed upon all men.’ By denying this, it denies the death of Christ in its testified character as God’s appointed method of taking away the sin of the world. It declares that ‘Christ died because he was killed,’ in destruction of the gospel testimony that ‘he gave his life a ransom for many’ (Mark 10:45); laid down his life for the sheep (John 10:15); put away sin by the sacrifice of himself (Heb. 9:26); offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, by which he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified (Heb. 10:12–14), through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (5:10).

“It reaches these disastrous results through the apparently harmless idea that the body of Adam was unaffected by the sentence of death, and that therefore Jesus was pure and holy and good in body as well as in character. Those who are young in the faith are easily carried away by a theory that appears to honour Christ. A maturer acquaintance with the scriptures, and especially with the shadowings of the entire Mosaic economy, will show them that in this particular it honours him at the expense of his work as the sin-bearer. It pleases inexperience to hear that Christ’s nature was ‘undefiled’ in the days of his flesh, but it is the pleasure of sentiment as opposed to truth. If the pleasure of sentiment is to guide us, we may as well go on to say that he was strong, in face of the testimony that he was weak (2 Cor. 13:4; John 4:6); glad, in face of the testimony that he was a man of sorrow (Isa. 53:3); beautiful, in face of the testimony that he had no form or comeliness (Ib. 2.); immortal, in face of the testimony that he had to be saved from death (Heb. 5:7), and had to obtain eternal salvation.

“It is a case illustrative of Solomon’s saying that ‘there is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof is the way of death.’ While apparently an innocuous and harmless and superior theory, it fatally corrupts and upsets and perverts the truth at its very threshold, for the very threshold of acceptability with God has been placed in sacrifice, both in the shadows of the law and the substance of the gospel. When sacrifice is seen as the self-abasement and repudiation of the offerers, the condemnation of sin in the flesh, and the supreme exaltation of the Creator in holiness, righteousness, and truth, the evil will be seen of a theory that takes away the one great offering through which man is invited to approach, in crucifixion with Christ and burial with him, for the forgiveness of sin and reconciliation with God, and attainment of life eternal.

“It may be that this mischief has been permitted to agitate the Colonies for the quickening of their spiritual apprehension. It always happens that when a truth is assailed, the controversy it provokes has the effect of causing the truth to be more clearly seen than it was before. The particular truth in this case is of so subtle and spiritual and high a character (as involving God’s etiquette in dealing with exiled man) that it is not seen at once, nor easily seen at any time, and is therefore liable to be easily clouded by reasonings that commend themselves to human ways and thoughts. After agitation it will be more solidly established than before.”—An Open Letter, Christadelphian, July, 1896, pp. 263–4.

With regard to this last paragraph, we may say that it embodies the pith of various allusions of ours, during the past year or two, that have given offence to some excellent men. When we spoke of “Evil of the Lord,” we meant just what is here said, “this mischief has been permitted to agitate” for a purpose. “Much contention” is no new thing in apostolic operations, and within as well as without. We must not be discouraged nor driven away by the prevalence of such; but, looking at the examples of holy men of old, “prove all things, hold fast that which is good,” and wait in obedience and patience for the return of the Lord Jesus from heaven.—Ed.