The Christadelphian September 1924, C.C. Walker

“Sin and the Flesh”

“If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God” (1 Pet. 4:11). How then do the oracles of God speak concerning sin and the flesh? As to sin the term (as has been pointed out times without number) is used in various senses—primary and secondary. In the primary sense “Sin is lawlessness” (1 Jno. 3:4). In the secondary sense sin is put by metonymy for the effect (or cause) of sin as the case may be. For instance, “Arise lest thou be consumed in the iniquity (margin, punishment) of the city” (Gen. 19:15). “I will pour their wickedness upon them” (Jer. 14:16), that is, the punishment thereof. “This shall be the sin (margin) of Egypt” (Zech. 15:19), that is, “punishment” thereof as in the text. “Sin is a synonym for human nature” (Dr. Thomas). “Sin” is applied to the golden calf which Aaron made (Deut. 9:29); to the idol sacrifices and High places of Israel (Hos. 4:8: 10:8), because these were the products and associations of the sin of Israel.

“Sin” is personified in the New Testament, particularly in the epistle to the Romans. The Lord himself personfies Sin. “Whosoever committeth sin is the servant (slave) of Sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever, but the Son abideth ever” (John 8:34). Here Sin is the Master of a house. Indeed, it might be said that Sin has obtained temporary dominion in the house of God but the Son of God will cast him out, and indeed, as concerning himself individually, has cast him out. In the Old Testament there is a play on names that suggests this idea. Bethel means House of God and was so called because of Jacob’s vision (Gen. 28.). But when the place became a stronghold of idolatry it was called Bethaven, House of Iniquity (1 Kings 12:28–30; Hos. 10:5). In the epistle to the Romans, Paul personifies Sin many times, as for instance, “Sin hath reigned unto death” (5:21); “We should not serve Sin” (6:6); “Freed from Sin” (verse 7); Christ “died unto Sin once” (verse 10); “Reckon yourselves to be dead indeed unto Sin” (verse 11); “Let not Sin reign in your mortal body” (verse 12); and many more illustrations occur.

Yet a brother controverting what he calls “The unclean flesh of Christ heresy” (Shield, June, p. 104), tells us that in Rom. 6:6 Paul is not referring to the flesh and blood body at all! And again, “Rom. 6:6 ought never to be quoted to bolster up the argument for a physical body—its teaching is purely moral and ethical, and affects daily life and practice, not the constitution of the flesh and blood body!”

We could understand an immortal-soulist talking like this—but a brother! In the name of Scripture and commonsense what “body” is it that is “dead because of sin”? (Rom. 8:10). If not “the flesh and blood body” what is it? What body is that the deeds of which are to be mortified? (Rom. 8:13). Is it not “the flesh” of the context of the same verse?

Yet in the end of the article the brother affirms the truth. What can you do in such a case? In faithfulness to the Truth it is impossible to receive such. The brother falsely accuses Dr. Thomas of asserting that Christ was as unclean and defiled in body as the worst diseased sinner upon earth! This is too bad. The words of Dr. Thomas, “The body of Jesus was as unclean as the bodies of those for whom he died,” import no such blasphemous and disgusting notion. He is speaking of the race, not of the special sinners thereof, and the brother knows it, or ought to know it.

The attempt to separate “character” from the flesh is wrong and heretical. It worked much mischief in the “Renunciationist” controversy of fifty years ago; and can do nothing else now. The logical end of it is the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, with all its concomitant absurdities of the alleged immaculate flesh of Christ, the Immaculate Conception and so forth. Sin dwelleth in us and Death hath dominion over us because of Sin, and the Son of God was made to be Sin for us, though he knew no sin (2 Cor. 5:21). And it is said of him in one place (Rom. 6:9), “Death hath no more dominion over him,” which shows that at one time Death had dominion over him.

The brother talks about “the filthy flesh heresy in England” which, he says, “we in Australia” repudiate. Why does he object to Bible terms concerning the flesh? Who are the “we”?

In the vision of Zech. 3. representative of “the Branch” of David, and “Stone” of Israel, Joshua the High priest is “clothed with filthy garments” representative of the flesh. And the putting away of these is divinely connected with the “removing of iniquity” (verse 9). So Christ “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Jude speaks of “the garment spotted by the flesh” (verse 23). And Jesus speaks of “a few names in Sardis who have not defiled their garments” (Rev. 3:4), that is, by walking “after the flesh.” And believers are exhorted to cleanse themselves “from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit” (2 Cor. 7:1). Where is the room for the doctrine that the flesh is a good and clean thing? “The works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, etc., etc.” (Gal. 5:19). And “he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption” (Gal. 6:8). How then can a brother object to the so-called “filthy flesh heresy”? “What is man, that he should be clean? and he that is born of a woman, that he should be righteous? Behold, He putteth no trust in His saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in His sight. How much more abominable and filthy is man which drinketh up iniquity like water” (Job. 15:14–16). Granted that Eliphaz’ “reproof” of Job was wrong, his doctrine in the abstract is right enough and in harmony with the other scriptures.

And as to the “we in Australia,” for whom is this brother presuming to speak? There are many in Australia we know who will have none of this doctrine, even though it be associated with the admission of truths that make it void. We have gone out of our way to avoid extremes in this matter, but we cannot keep silence when such things are printed and published as real true Christadelphian doctrine. They are not such at all.—Ed.