“Redemption in Christ Jesus” was written to refute the Renunicationist Clean Flesh beliefs of the Nazarene fellowship who renounced Christadelphian beliefs on the atonement with Edward Turney. Many of the arguments in this book are applicable to Shield Clean Flesh even though there are differences.

Redemption in Christ Jesus, 1946, W. F. Barling

“3. Our Outward Man”

Paul’s statement, “I know that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing” ( Rom. 7: 18 ), means for Christadelphians that human flesh is wholly evil. To this a Nazarene author rejoins, “But Paul was not referring to his physical body but to his life before he was in Christ”. The whole of the chapter in which this verse occurs is regarded as a dramatization of Paul’s mental distress when, as a Pharisee, he vainly sought justification by perfect obedience to the Law of Moses, without having first availed himself of God’s offer of redemption from Adamic bondage (i.e., the legal bondage postulated in Nazarene theory). Paul is said to have realized from the animal sacrifices that in his flesh (or unredeemed) condition dwelt no good thing. A careful study of Apostolic teaching is therefore clearly necessary to determine first whether the term “flesh” is used literally or figuratively in such disputed passages, and secondly what its precise meaning is when employed figuratively.

The Apostles drew a distinction between a man’s personality and his physical nature (though never in the sense in which orthodoxy imagines that the one can exist independently of the other). Paul spoke of the “outward” and “inward” man—the outward man being, obviously, that part of us which experiences hunger and thirst and similar animal sensations, whereas the inward man is that which can still hunger and thirst after righteousness when the physical frame is well nourished. Paul and his body were in reality one and the same being, but he could be “at home in”, or “absent from” that body ( 2 Cor. 5 : 6–8 ). He regarded it as an “earthen vessel” ( 2 Cor. 4 : 7 ) and, like Peter, ( 2 Pet. 1 : 13 ) spoke of himself as the occupant of a tent, or earthly house ( 2 Cor. 5 : 1 , 4 ).

In Rom. 7 the occupant and the dwelling are referred to by Paul as “the inward man” (v. 22 ) and “the body of this death” (v. 24 ). But since, all the while, Paul’s personality and his body were indivisible, he was careful, when affirming that no good thing dwelt “in me”, to add significantly, “that is, in my flesh” (v. 18 ). Jesus, the sinless, similarly declined the title “good” given to him by the Jewish ruler, saying, “Why callest thou me good? None is good save God” ( Luke 18 : 18–19 ). Yet, though no good thing dwelt in his flesh, Paul consented unto the Law that it was good (v. 16 ). How was this possible? Because he had both “members” and “mind”. With the latter, being instructed out of the Law, he approved the things which are excellent ( Rom. 2:18 ). But his members reacted quite differently, with the result that to will was present with Paul, but how to perform that which was good he found not (v. 18 ). In this way Paul experienced an inward conflict which was unknown to others who, unlike him, had their conversation in the lust of the flesh, so fulfilling the desires both of the flesh and of the mind. Paul’s conflict was unknown to such men because in their case mind and members acted in accord ( Eph. 2: 3 ). Yet, as for him, despite his desire to do good, evil was present with him ( Rom. 7: 21 ), in his members (v. 23 ), bringing him into captivity to the law of sin. But, in so far as he constantly delighted in the Law of God after the inward man (v. 22 ), he could justifiably claim, “If I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me (v. 20 ) . . . so then, with the mind I, myself, serve the Law of God, but with the flesh the law of Sin” (v. 25 ). Let the two words “unredeemed state” be substituted in this latter verse for the term “flesh” and the effect is ludicrous. There, as in verse 18 it is synonymous with his “members”. Indeed, it is fundamental to the whole argument that what hindered the personality which conversion had transformed, was the literal flesh which conversion did not and could not alter; the inward man had to contend with the body of death, or outward man. The one had been bought with a price so that thereby the other, too, became God’s ( 1 Cor. 6 : 20 ), but the outward man was still carnal, and physically Paul remained sold under sin, since with the flesh he continued to serve the law of sin. The time had not yet come for Paul to be clothed upon with his bodily “house which is from heaven” ( 2 Cor. 5 : 2 ). “In this we groan”, is his comment on his physical nature; or, again, “the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness” ( Rom. 8: 10 ).

Clearly, therefore, Paul is talking in Rom. 7 of his literal flesh. Any of the Nazarene Fellowship who admitted this fact would still contend that the indwelling Sin of which Paul speaks, is not a fixed transgression-tendency, but the Sin of Adam (i.e., the Sin which they declare to be the legal proprietor of mankind). Such a notion does not allow fairly for the all-important factor; the conflict described in the chapter rages within a person, not because he has to observe certain ritual ordinances, but because he finds himself unable to “perform” (v. 18 ) what the Law requires. Which Law Paul has in mind does not matter; who the man is—whether a Pharisee or a Christian—need not affect the issue: for he is, in either case, a man placed under a commandment which, sooner or later, Sin deceives him into breaking. The chapter illustrates, from the experience of an actual person, how the flesh lusts against the spirit. “These are contrary the one to the other”, says Paul, “so that ye cannot do the things that ye would” ( Gal. 5: 17 ). If for the words “the flesh” and “the spirit” the expressions “the law of my members” and “the law of my mind” are substituted, the language is that of Rom. 7 . It is in “the flesh” or “members” that the law of sin resides.

In this chapter Paul clearly uses the term “Sin” in a special sense. Strictly speaking Sin is the transgression of law, the act of disobedience ( 1 John 3 : 4 ); but in Rom. 7: 11 it is mentioned not as the result, but as the cause, of deception. It is not the act of transgression, but what leads to that act which Paul terms “Sin”. We see why. “The commandment came” (v. 9 ). At once the process described in Gal. 5: 17 began to operate, for Sin sprang into life. That is, impulses contrary to the commandment (and therefore by nature sinful) were at once set in motion. The edict, “Thou shalt not covet”, was directed against a coveting tendency already within Paul, and made him “know” or become aware of it ( Rom. 7 ). Without the Law, Sin was dead, but with its advent the contest within Paul began: the outcome was disobedience. “Sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me and by it slew me” (v. 11 ). The language is specific: it was “the commandment”, not the ceremonial of sacrifice, which enabled Sin to convict Paul and condemn him to death. The import of the sacrifices was obviously that every man needed redemption, but quite apart from the typical significance of the Mosaic ritual there was “a ministration of death written in stones” (i.e., the Ten Commandments). They were a ministration of death because no one was perfectly obedient to them, and so all were convicted of sin. Thus “the letter” killed ( 2 Cor. 3 : 6–7 ), not in the sense that what was good was made death to Paul, but that Sin worked death in him by that which was good ( Rom. 7: 13 ). So, in Paul’s usage, Sin which deceived him into sinning, is clearly an active force, existing independently of law since it takes occasion by the commandment.

Such a force was not part of Adam’s nature, or of Eve’s, when God made them: God made man upright. The significant difference between Paul’s language and that of Genesis indicates that this indwelling transgression-tendency is the legacy of Adam’s first transgression. For it was Sin which deceived Paul (v. 11 ), where it was the serpent which beguiled Eve ( 2 Cor. 11 : 3 ). The difference is striking. In Eve’s case the serpent tempted from without; in Paul’s case Sin was indwelling. Eve was deceived by the enticing speech of the outward tempter who aroused in her a desire to disobey; in Paul the desire existed already, and functioned spontaneously when the commandment came, for it was his own lust which enticed him ( Jas. 1: 14 ). This can mean but one thing; after the first transgression Diabolos was inward, not external. Thus Sin, in Paul’s argument, is not some legal overlord, but a transgression-tendency dwelling in the literal flesh of man.

This conclusion is consistent with Paul’s statements elsewhere. The works of the flesh are uniformly evil; but against the fruit of the spirit there is no law ( Gal. 5 : 19–23 ). In thus demonstrating the incompatibility of flesh and spirit, is Paul merely stating that there is no concord between two legal states—that of the unredeemed and that of the redeemed? No; he is contrasting two courses of action by those already redeemed. It is with deeds, not with legal status, that his argument is concerned, since a change of status requires, but does not necessarily effect, a corresponding moral change. Literal facts form the basis of this figurative language. Evil deeds originate in the flesh; good deeds are the fruit of the spirit. Believers at Rome, although they had not altered physically at conversion, were yet described as being no longer “in the flesh” ( Rom. 7: 5 ). Such a statement clearly refers to their moral state; they were not “in the flesh” because they walked “not after the flesh but after the spirit” ( Rom. 8: 4 ). It was necessary for them to continue in that walk, “for they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh . . . the mind of the flesh is death . . . because the mind of the flesh is enmity with God; for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God” ( Rom. 8 : 5–8 ). Here again the literal lends point to the figurative. Physically the Romans could not exist except “in the flesh” ( Phil. 1: 22 ; 2 Cor. 10 : 3 ); but morally they were to be “in the spirit”. Paul explains how. “Ye are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you” ( Rom. 8: 9 ). On this verse the Nazarene theory founders, for if “the flesh” is synonymous here with “the unredeemed state”, how could such words possibly be addressed to those already redeemed? Such would be automatically “in the spirit” by one summary act of redemption. Why then the restrictive clause, “if so be that the spirit of God dwell in you”? There is only one reasonable explanation. The metaphorical use of the term “flesh” is predicated on the fact that the literal flesh is evil by nature, so that its influence has to be replaced by that of the spirit, or teaching of the Word. If it is not, a man is morally as much “carnal”, or “in the flesh”, after redemption as if he remained unredeemed ( 1 Cor. 3 : 3 ).

Once a man is redeemed nothing can alter his legal status, but his moral attainment falls far short of that status. Ceremonially he has put off “the old man” in baptism ( Col. 3: 9 ), but he has still to put him off in practical ways ( Eph. 4 : 21–24 ); he has put on Christ ( Gal. 3: 27 ), but still has the task of putting him on in deed, as well as word ( Rom. 13: 14 ); he lives in the spirit by divine right, but walking in the spirit is a totally different matter ( Gal. 5: 25 ). Consequently, “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” ( 1 John 1 : 8 ). This confession by John is but a restatement of Paul’s confession, “I find then a law, that when I would do good evil is present with me” ( Rom. 7:21 ).

Thus Paul, concerned still with actions not legal status, proceeds, “If ye live after the flesh ye shall die: but if ye through the spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live” ( Rom. 8: 13 ). It will be seen that the antithetical statements do not balance: to mortify the deeds of the body is to act with assistance; to live after the flesh needs no help. That is, because a man’s nature is sinful by impulse, he cannot live after the spirit through spontaneous goodness, but only “through the spirit”.

Another antithesis of Scripture is significant. “He that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption, but he that soweth to the spirit shall of the spirit reap life everlasting” ( Gal. 6: 8 ). Again the antithetical statements do not correspond exactly. A man’s flesh is his own, a part of him. Not so the spirit; it is the spirit of Him that raised up Jesus which dwells in him ( Rom. 8: 11 ). Thus the virtues which result are in every sense of the fruit of the spirit, and not of his flesh ( Eph. 5: 9 ). A disciple’s mind, which was previously a servant of his fleshly desires, must be renewed in spirit, or disposition ( Eph. 4: 23 ); the effect of such a renewal is the transformation of the man himself ( Rom. 12: 2 ). But all is of God. A man works out his own salvation, but in reality it is God which worketh in him both to will and to do ( Phil. 2 : 12–13 ). No statement could more conclusively prove that the desire to go good is not native to man. Thus the regenerated personality can claim, “I live”, and yet be forced to confess, “yet not I, but Christ liveth in me” ( Gal. 2: 20 ). As when a saint fails “it is no more I that do it but Sin that dwelleth in me”, so when he labours, “I labour, yet not I but the grace of God which is with me” ( 1 Cor. 15 : 10 ).

The conclusion is obvious: human flesh and the divine spirit, or influence, are opposites. The mind dominated by the one is incompatible with the mind dominated by the other. The mind of the spirit has to be acquired by a man because it is not a property of his nature. Man is never spontaneously good, and from his earliest hours has to be trained and disciplined by influences from without. Nowhere in the whole of Scripture is virtue ever attributed to the flesh; “the flesh profiteth nothing”, but “it is the spirit that quickeneth” ( John 6: 63 ). “The things that be of God” and “those that be of men” ( Matt. 16: 23 ) are for ever hostile, for the literal flesh lusts against the spirit. This is the consequence of Adam’s transgression, for by his one offence judgment came upon all men to condemnation ( Rom. 5: 18 ), and all have sinned ( Rom. 3: 23 ; 5 : 12 ). The entry of law makes his original offence abound, because, ever since, flesh has impeded obedience. “This I say, then, walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh” ( Gal. 5: 16 ).