The Christadelphian, October 1918, H. A. Sindel

“The Cross of Christ”

What is the Divine estimate of the Flesh? Human opinion is valueless in the case. There is a natural conceit in our nature which renders it incapable of pronouncing a just verdict upon itself. Our point of view is naturally as restricted and selfish as the swinish view of the mire. It is humiliating to human vanity to imagine the flesh to be other than very good and clean. The Divine judgment, however, is not so fettered. God alone is able to take a disinterested and comprehensive view of our make-up. He has left us in no quandary as to how He regards the flesh.

“Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin,” implored David. “Purge me with hyssop and I shall be clean: wash me and I shall be whiter than snow” (Psalm 51:2, 7).

“If we confess our sins,” says James, “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (1 John 1:9).

What do these scriptures teach if not that sin is defiling and especially obnoxious to the Deity? When, therefore, the term sin is employed as a synonym of the flesh, what can it be but that the flesh stands in the Divine regard as does sin. “Sin is the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4). Yet the flesh is styled “sinful” (Rom. 8:3); “the body of sin” (Rom. 6:6). How can the same word be used to describe both transgression and human nature except there be an identity between them? And what can that consist of if they are not equally unclean and repulsive in the Divine estimation? If the flesh with its impulses and tendencies is pure and undefiled how is this term of defilement applied to it with any show of reason? Why the choice of a word of such unqualified pollution to designate a thing so eminently clean? We look in vain for justification of its use except that to God they stand in the same category as being equally unclean, odious and worthy of condemnation. The flesh is unclean in the sight of the Deity, hence says Bildad:—

“How can he be clean that is born of a woman” (Job 25:4)?

Some affirm that this is merely the uninspired opinion of Bildad and that it does not represent the truth. Apart from the virtual avowal of partial inspiration that such an objection involves, however, it does not accord with Paul’s dictum:—“For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18).

That our nature is by no means clean is also shown in the “change of raiment” with which Joshua was invested when, as a “man of sign,” he represented God’s servant the Branch (Zech. 3:8).

“Now Joshua (or Jesus, for the names mean the same) was clothed with filthy garments and stood before the angel. And he answered and spoke 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” (verses 3, 4)—an obvious reference to the “clothing with immortality” which Paul speaks of in 2 Cor. 5:1–4, an inheritance which Peter says is “incorruptible and undefiled” (1 Pet. 1:4). The apostle evidently believed that the present mortal nature was both corruptible and defiled. [“This corruptible,” 1 Cor. 15:54.—Ed., C.]

Doubtless much might be written to prove the Scriptures astray: the whole world of philosophy is ranged against the Bible on the immortality of the soul. The facts, however, will remain in both cases, despite the vanity of mortals. One of the outstanding evils of human nature consists in its unjustifiably exalted notions respecting its worth and position. The Cross of Christ was designed to dissipate these false ideas—to exalt God and humiliate man (1 Cor. 1:18–31). That opinion is manifestly an unscriptural one which attempts to reverse God’s purpose of the abasement of the flesh. Human nature was to be shown of what it was worthy by a public execution and repudiation whereby God’s justice was to be vindicated and His righteousness declared (Rom. 3:25). It was the aim of the Deity to condemn the flesh in a fashion that would leave no room for cavil or dispute (Rom. 3:27). This was accomplished in the voluntary submission to crucifixion by Jesus Christ, who, as one of the race, partook of the common nature with its inherited defilement (John 10:18; Heb. 2:14). Thus the true and eternal relations between God and man were established and a basis laid for future intercourse. God requires nought from man, “for the world is mine,” saith He, “and the fulness thereof” (Psa. 50:12); but what He has taken care to provide for is a definite recognition of His own supre macy and righteousness and of man’s gu lt and unworthine s.

How imperative such a monumental understanding between God and the race of rebels! The death of Christ stands as the declaration for all time of God’s justice, the token of rebel man’s absolute and unconditional surrender and his acceptance of the death-penalty as the merited end of his career. Thus the Cross of Christ not only assures us reconciliation with the Creator but defines for all time, as a landmark, the relations between Him and humanity. The planets’ orbits are not more unchangeably determined.

A basis having been laid, approach to the Deity is possible. But by one way only. “I am the way, the truth, and the life,” said Jesus, “no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). He says further:—“He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). Of baptism, Paul writes:—

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptised into Jesus Christ were baptised into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death. . . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed” (Rom. 6:3–6). This, then, is the way of approach to God—by voluntary entrance into Christ and a participation in his death. Thus each individual coming to God must first of all recognise the principles involved in the crucifixion, virtually proclaim his own worthiness of death and at the same time declare, in a practical manner, God’s righteousness.

Now “he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom. 6:7).

Hence, those who “die in Christ” on the cross have their sins washed away by his blood. In the Deity’s sight they are no longer rebels. Having capitulated on His terms they are forgiven. Their outlook now is altogether changed.

“If we be dead with Christ,” says Paul, “we believe that we shall also live with him” (ver. 8).

“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above . . . for ye are dad, and your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:1–3). Thus, similarly to his death, the resurrection of Christ involves more than one person. It was a multitudinous Christ which was put to death: it was the same that was raised. “He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification” (Rom. 4:25).

Now what title have we to immortality? Upon what principle are we “made alive” in Christ? We have no title or right whatever.

“But God, who is rich in mercy, for His great love wherewith He loved us, even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ . . . for by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast” (Eph. 2:4–9).

“But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us” (Titus 3:4–5).

The extension of God’s mercy in this manner has only been made possible by the death of human nature. Where the underlying principles of this are not perceived there can be no reconciliation with God. The apostle John is emphatic on this point, for he says:—“Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ hath not God” (2 John 9). These are the condition which God has ordained in order that man may approach Him. No one can do this acceptably who does not appreciate the facts of the case. These facts are subverted by the doctrines of the Nicolaitanes. The cross of Christ upon which hanged “the body of sin” is the Divine estimate of the flesh, which some, after such a striking condemnation, still declare to be “very good” and “clean” and “not necessarily obnoxious to God.” Such teaching is in absolute defiance of the Divine mind as expressed in the Crucifixion. Again, the attempt to sever Christ from the nature which was to be condemned must logically result in the fact that not the flesh, but a substitute was condemned to death, and that accordingly, there was no justice in the death of Christ nor was God’s righteousness declared.

The foregoing is from a pamphlet entitled “The Modern Nicolaitanes: a pamphlet treating of the most subtle and noxious error assailing the truth of God in these latter days—the ‘Clean-Flesh’ Heresy current in Australasia, which is shown to be a revival of the ‘Turney’ Heresy, which attempted to subvert Christadelphians fifty years ago,”—by brother H. A. Sindel, of 413, Elizabeth Street, Sydney, price 4d.

The article is an example of “sound speech that cannot be condemned” (Tit. 2:8), and it is a grief of mind to us to think that any in Sydney can be “of the contrary part,” as Paul expresses it in this epistle to Titus.

The pamphlet (48 pp., 6½ × 4½ inches), is divided into four sections:—I, “Is there a Difference?” 2, “Echoes of Renunciationism”; 3. “The Cross of Christ” (reproduced here); and 4, “The Question of Fellowship.”

Section 2 traces a parallel between the “Renunciationist” doctrine of long ago and the present variant reproduction thereof. We have once or twice had it in mind to do this, but have forborne, hoping that it would not be necessary, and wishing to localise strife and controversy as much as possible. But we are not sorry that it has been done; and commend the pamphlet to the attention of any who may be puzzled as to the ecclesial situation in Australasia. “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”—Ed., C..