I should like to thank The Testimony for producing a special issue on the subject of the Atonement, which I read with interest. I believe more attention should be paid to this aspect of God’s work in Christ, the very substance of the gospel, than has been in recent years in the Brotherhood.
Without wishing to be critical, perhaps I may offer a brief comment on points raised in two of the articles. In his article Brother Burt informed us that he “made a deliberate attempt . . . to avoid the use of such phrases as ‘sin in the flesh’, ‘human nature’, ‘sin’s flesh’ and ‘Adamic nature’ “I heartily concur with Brother Burt that strife “about words to no profit” is to be deplored.
Howbeit, I believe that it is very important to define clearly what we understand to be the teaching of such phrases. It can be shown that there has been a tendency in the Brotherhood in the past for some brethren to use terms in a sense different from that understood by other brethren. In discussion opposing groups have attached different meanings to one word or phrase. This has been partly responsible for controversy.
I would urge brethren to exercise great care when they employ Scriptural phraseology, in order that the words are used in the sense which the context requires. In his article Brother Mellowes rightly speaks of the sacrifice of Jesus as “victory over our cursed and corrupt nature”. To this he adds,” . . . termed ‘sinful flesh’ “. He cites Romans 8:3: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh”. This is the only occurrence of the term “sinful flesh” in the AV. The RV margin offers the alternative rendering, “flesh of sin”.
An examination of this section of the Epistle to the Romans indicates that Paul has been employing the figures of metonymy and personification in relation to sin. He refers to’ Sin’ as the ingrained impulse of the flesh, as a consequence of which all are sinful, or sinners. The power of Sin in human flesh is then described by various figures, for example as owner, monarch, paymaster. This language is carried over into chapter 8, and thus, by using the term “sinful flesh”, Paul is denoting flesh that sins. “Flesh of sin” (margin) connotes flesh under the ownership of Sin.
As Brother Mellowes ably demonstrated, Jesus shared our nature with its mortality. He was subject to the evil that had come through sin in Eden. He was subject to the conditions of human life, partaking of that which belonged to human nature in its tragedy and woe. In character Jesus was sinless. The flesh of Jesus never yielded to Sin. He did not succumb to the natural desires of flesh.
Brother Mellowes mentioned that Jesus “bore our nature, sinful flesh”; again: “Jesus . . . was born as sinful flesh”. I suggest, on the basis of Romans 8 and its context, that it is incorrect to equate the nature of Jesus Christ with “sinful flesh”, and inaccurate to state that he was born as sinful flesh. The apostle is extremely careful to assert that Jesus was sent “in the likeness of sinful flesh”. To say simply that he came in “sinful flesh” would be to intimate that Sin was the owner. Using the word “likeness” Paul is declaring that the flesh of Jesus was identical, or of the same stuff, as the flesh over which Sin extends its sway in all Adam’s other descendants, yet Jesus committed no sin.
While I accept Brother Mellowes’s treatment of his subject, I question whether his use of the phrase “sinful flesh” satisfactorily expresses the point which he makes. I submit this comment not to provoke ‘strifes of words’ but to promote further study of this wonderful but sometimes neglected topic of Atonement.
Paul Aston – Mountain Ash
Reply
I would like to thank Brother Paul Aston for his comments. As Brother Paul and I have talked about the points he raises I do not think that there is any great difference between us. I cannot, however, agree with his statement that it is “incorrect to equate the nature of Jesus Christ with ‘sinful flesh’ “. Leaving aside any argument about the appropriateness of the phrase “sinful flesh”, I think we both agree that this phrase refers to the nature which we bear. I believe, however, that it is correct to equate that with the nature of Jesus. Brother Paul is quite correct in saying that Jesus was not ruled or owned by his nature, as we are, but it does not follow from that that he was not of our nature. Instead it shows that he overcame it. This surely is the very point that Romans 8:3 is making: “God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin (eg. by a sacrifice for sin), condemned sin in the flesh”. Unless Jesus had been of identical nature, and overcame it, he could not have condemned our nature in his own death, and we would still be without hope. Rather than ignoring the context of the phrase “sinful flesh” in Romans, this interpretation, I believe, puts the verse in the correct setting, as demonstrated.
In addition to the foregoing it must also be said, in agreement with Brother Paul, that there was something different about Jesus. He was the begotten Son of God, and as such he inherited from his Father latent potential which he willingly and fully developed so that he alone was able to fulfil the role of Saviour of the world.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One