Logos Magazine, 1950, H. P. Mansfield

“Dr. Thomas and the Mortality of Man”

The Campsie pamphlet reproduces a portion of an article from the "Herald" of 1852. The original article has an interesting background. Following the publication of "Elpis Israel", an interested friend (Mr. Cook) wrote Brother Thomas criticising the book on the ground that it did not teach the truth concerning the Devil. He asserted that the Devil is from the beginning (John 8-44) and ante-dated man, that the New Testament taught that there is a Tempter as really as a "Christ" the Tempted, and asserted that the Tempter was the Devil of orthodoxy. The Doctor's reply (portion of which is reproduced in the pamphlet before us) is a defence of 'Elpis Israel", which Brother Thomas declared clearly expressed his mind on this subject. In earlier portions of the article he defined the Devil as "sin incarnate in flesh and blood, and manifested in the personal, social and political works of mankind", and in explanation thereof quoted Heb. 2:14. As such, he declared, the Devil did not ante-date man. This is the point of the second par. on p. 2 of the Campsie circular.

The Devil or adversary to be destroyed being "sin's flesh", Brother Thomas shows that Christ possessed this nature, and by emerging morally undefiled from the fierce controversies against this power, through death destroyed sin in the flesh. Brother Thomas is careful to point out that the triumph of Christ was more than a mere triumph of will-power, and emphasises the Spirit-anointing result of the conceiving of Christ, whereby he became morally a manifestation of the Father, being Deity manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3-16). "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Cor. 519). Brother Thomas expresses the matter with great clarity in the following sentences:

"Jesus claimed to be the seed of Abraham and God, while he charged them (the Jews) with being seed of Abraham and sin — they were, in other words, begotten of sinful flesh, while he was begotten of God, sinful flesh being the matrice (mould) of both parties. One thing may resemble another without being identical in every particular. This was the case with Christ's flesh. It was sin's flesh so far as its maternity was concerned, but not as to its Fatherhood."

These words are very clear. Christ was, by reason of his birth, in the Adamic line, a form of sin's flesh. This maternal inheritance was ever-present and an occasion of groaning and tears (Heb. 5:7), until his resurrection. The moral manifestation was then related to a glorious setting of the eternal nature, and he became "the Lord, the Spirit". In comparing Christ with Adam before the fall, Brother Thomas writes: "His flesh, however, was still reduced in strength below that of Adam's original nature, because of its maternal defilement".

Defining "sinful flesh" as "flesh full of sin", Brother Thomas states that this term is inappropriate applied to Christ in the days of his flesh. The explanation of this is revealed in an earlier portion of the article (but not included in the section printed by Campsie). There he quotes Paul's words in Rom. 713: "Sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful." He shows that the word "sinful" is used to denote flesh that has actually transgressed. He writes that the original word "Hamartoolos" is "one who deviates from the path of virtue, a vicious person, a sinner"; consequently, "depraved, sinful, detestable". Such a term, says the Doctor, could not apply to Jesus;, therefore in this sense "sinful flesh is inapplicable to him." He more correctly renders Rom. 8:3 as "a form of sin's flesh". The nature of Jesus was identical with all mankind, with this difference, that God was his Father, and he was thereby strengthened to overcome. Some have thought that the usage of the words: "the likeness of sinful flesh" (or sin's flesh) suggests that the nature of Jesus was different to that of those he came to redeem. On the contrary, the Scriptures are emphatic in identifying the nature of Jesus with that of his brethren.

The same mode of language is used by Paul in Philippians 2:7: He "was made in the likeness of men." To the same extent that Jesus was a man he was also sinful flesh, with this important exception that he "did not sin." Thus whilst he was in "a form of sin's flesh" he did not yield to the promptings of sin, and therefore could not be termed "a sinner" or "sinful" (Rom. 7:13). In "Elpis Israel", the teaching of which Brother Thomas endorsed in the article under considerations, he wrote:

"Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin; especially as he was himself 'innocent of the great transgression', having been obedient in all things,"