Mind And Flesh
It must be evident to all that terms like `mind’ and ‘flesh’ are not merely ambiguous; they are ultra-ambiguous. There are so many aspects, conditions, phases and departments of both mind and flesh (any one of which is usually described by the general term ‘mind’ or ‘flesh’, as the case may be), and there are so many different kinds and degrees of cleanness and uncleanness, that misapprehensions on the matters under notice are sometimes inevitable. Charity, however, will unravel the multitude of misunderstandings — if it exists! The lack of this attribute is one of the chief hindrances to the healing of our troubles. Charity brings clarity.
One side has devoted much time and argument to establishing the truth that, as thought has a physical basis, then whatever evil is manifested through the mind of man is manifested through the flesh. To balance up, one has merely to add that, likewise, whatever good takes up its abode in the human mentality, it also becomes part of the flesh. There is no escape from that fact. In this connection it is noteworthy that Dr. Thomas taught that when Paul said “In me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing” (Rom. 7:18), he “affirms this of himself considered as an unenlightened son of the flesh” (‘Elpis Israel’, p. 92). After enlightenment, there are in the flesh the two principles — evil and good (ibid, p.137). This observation should remove a host of difficulties.
‘A’ and ‘B’ will now agree that the flesh, left to itself, could never walk in the light, because there is — naturally — no light in it. So, although in a general sense, enlightened flesh is the same flesh as unenlightened flesh, there is a particular sense in which it is quite different. Unfortunately, throughout our forty years’ controversy we seem to have referred indiscriminately to both as ‘the flesh’ without qualification or distinction.
The Carnal mind
It is heart-sickening to see brethren estranged over mere phrases when agreed as to facts. One brother maintains that ‘Jesus had a carnal mind’; another strenuously opposes the idea and yet, on closer scrutiny, both may be in unison. The first simply means that Jesus was endowed with the same mental mechanism as other men and that his mind, like theirs, was beset by temptation (which is true, although ‘carnal’ is an unfortunate choice of adjectives in that connection); whereas the second means merely that Jesus never at any time surrendered to the lust of the flesh.
Dr. Thomas has rightly pointed out p.91) that ‘the carnal mind, or thinking of the flesh’ is ‘illustrated by the works of the flesh’. These were never performed by our Lord and Master, and therefore ‘the carnal mind’ found no illustration in him.
In the April number of ‘The Testimony’ appears an answer by Bro. P. H. Adams to the question “Had he (Jesus) a ‘carnal mind’?” We commend the article to the attention of brethren everywhere. Both ‘A’ and ‘B’ will surely say ‘Amen’ to the following: “These two verses alone (Rom. 8:6-7) suffice to show how unfortunate indeed, how un-Scriptural, it is (when emphasising Christ’s humanity) to say that he had ‘a carnal mind’. It was just because he had not a carnal mind that he was able to do always the things which pleased the Father” (p.138).
When ‘the mind of Christ’ (1 Cor. 2:16; Phil. 2:5) replaces the ‘carnal mind’ in his brethren there will be a complete end to this foolish division (1 Cor. 3:3). ‘The Testimony’ article above referred to also supplies an answer to the question “Was Jesus ‘defiled’?” That answer reveals, incidentally but conclusively, what an absolute farce this decrepit division is.
Inherited Virtues
It is a noticeable thing that whilst `A’ has rejected ‘B’s’ fellowship for allegedly teaching that Jesus’ nature was different from our own (but the charge is false), ‘A’ himself has made claims concerning Christ which, along with his own line of reasoning, would prove the very belief on his part of that with which he charges For instance, this is what we have in “We Render a Reason” (p.8): “God by His Holy Spirit begat His Son Jesus… who… inherited our sin-stricken nature together with the Divine virtues.” If B chose to adopt A’s policy he would, from this, establish(?) the fact that A therefore believes, after all, that Jesus was not “in all things… made like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17). One must ask B, however, not to adopt this policy.
In these things we must learn to bear and forbear one with the other, seeking charitably to understand rather than accuse. “Without controversy great is the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16), but with much controversy is the ‘great mystery’ understood! There is sound sense in the exhortation by Bro. R. Roberts entitled, ‘Crotchets’ (“Seasons of Comfort”, p.213): “It is sufficient to take the facts and be thankful. We believe Jesus was God manifest in the flesh. We know not how.” Now we `know in part… but when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away’ (1 Cor. 13:9). Long after death has been ‘swallowed up in victory’ immortal tongues will speak of the mystery of `God manifest in the flesh’ and of all accomplished thereby. Meanwhile, it is for poor mortals like us to behold and admire; to accept, and adore.
It is unwise (because self-exonerating) to suggest that it was easier for Jesus to overcome, by reason of his divine begettal, than it is for us. Whatever finer details the two `sides’ may hug, we agree that (in the words of an esteemed brother) ‘a sinless man was produced of exactly the same physical nature as ourselves, who overcame every temptation and gained the approval of his Father, who rewarded him with everlasting life on account of his obedience’
Condemnation
We agree that Jesus was born under the condemnation passed upon man because of sin. That is, that he was liable, by nature, to undergo what is scripturally called ‘the common death of all men’ (Numb. 16:29). This death however, he did not suffer. He was ‘cut off’; ‘taken, and by wicked hands… crucified and slain’. The death he did suffer at the hands of sinners was one of violence, humiliation and shame — the type of death which rejected sinners yet shall suffer, subsequent to judgment.
We should not, however, lose sight of the following facts:-
- The condemnation pronounced upon Adam was not merely that he should die, but that he should return to the dust (Gen. 3:19).
- The condemnation of ‘the second death’ will involve not only violence and humiliation, but also ‘shame and everlasting contempt’ (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46) — that is, eternal death.
We must all recognise, therefore, that, in the complete sense, Jesus did not experience either (1) the condemnation passed upon Adam, or (2) the condemnation yet to be passed upon Adam’s enlightened but disobedient posterity (at the judgment Heb. 9:27). These are things which (in their fullness) Jehovah, in His righteousness, would not suffer His ‘Holy One to see’ (Ps. 16:9-11; Acts 2:26, 27).
What, then, becomes of all our wordy strife regarding Jesus suffering “the condemnation due to human nature”? What, too, becomes of the charges of
‘Substitution’?
I know of no Christadelphian on either side who believes that God punished Jesus for our sins, nor can I conceive of any. One admits that sometimes statements are made which may, to a careless mind, savour of ‘substitution’, though certainly not meant to convey it.
Here is an example. Jesus was truly our representative. Bro. Roberts taught (‘Christendom Astray’, p.147): “God dealt with him representatively. There is a great difference between a representative and a substitute. A representative is not disconnected from those represented. On the contrary, those represented go through with him all that he goes through.” But do they, really? Figuratively and ritually, yes; actually, no. Let any brother of Christ peruse those chapters of ‘Nazareth Revisited’ entitled ‘Set at nought’ and ‘Golgotha’ and ask himself whether he has really gone through that! No. Instead of that, he is figuratively ‘buried with Christ’, and the water and the blood, in conjunction with the renewing of his mind, cleanse him from his sin. He is ‘crucified with Christ’; nevertheless he lives (Gal. 2:20). But this is not substitution!
If God ‘should mark iniquities’ (Ps. 130:3), making no provision whatever for forgiveness, then all would be swept away forever in summary judgment. Instead of this, Christ has suffered and died, been raised again and glorified, exalted to God’s right hand a Prince and a Saviour, through whom there is forgiveness for all who humbly recognise, in God’s appointed way, that the death suffered by His Son is all that they, as sinners, could rightly claim. But, again, this is not teaching substitution!
The sophistry of sinners – real sinners – will never dispose of the awkward truth that it was their sins (Adam’s sin, my sin, your sin, and the sins of his immediate murderers) which took Jesus to Calvary and to the stillness of Joseph’s tomb. In other words, he died because of sins which he did not commit. But, once again, the recognition of these facts is not ‘substitution’.
There is a world of difference, apparently imperceptible to some, between (1) ‘suffering wrongfully’ at the hands of sinners that which really was due to them (1 Peter 2:19; Luke 23:41); and (2) being punished by God for the sins of other men. The latter is substitution; the former is not.
False Reports
Why must brethren panic at the words ‘instead of and at once begin to summon up their evil spectres of substitution? There are scores of men living today — both in this land and abroad — who face judgment for attributing to their brethren in Christ ideas and teachings which those brethren never held and never taught! It is a dreadfully serious thing, simply because ‘it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God’. For from the beginning He has said: “Thou shalt not raise a false report… Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment” (Exod. 23:1, 2). There may yet be time for brethren to repent and reform. But they must act quickly now. (Especially in 1975! H.W.) “Behold, the judge standeth before the door.” (James 5:9).
God’s righteousness declared
Many earnest minds seem to entertain the notion that unless there was something in Jesus which actually merited the death of the cross, God would have been unrighteous in allowing him to suffer it. There seems to be no need for such a conclusion.
We appear to have overlooked the important facts that: (1) it is Yahweh’s unchallengeable prerogative to do what He will with His own. None dare question His righteousness nor say unto Him “What doest Thou?” when He exercises His sovereign right to test the obedience of His Son “unto death, even the death of the cross”; (2) God did not crucify His Son, nor did He engage, persuade, influence or compel anyone else to do so. It was the ‘strong bulls of Bashan’ (Ps. 22:12) who gored to death the Son of God; it was the seed of the serpent that bruised the seed of the woman (Gen. 3:15). ‘It pleased the Lord to bruise him’ (Isa. 53:10) in the sense that it was the Father’s ‘commandment’ (John 10: 18) that the Son should submit to the will of sinners. The divine scheme of redemption in Christ required it.
We admit, therefore, that it was ‘the Father’s will’ to which he yielded ‘in sad Gethsemane’, yet ‘the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 2:23) by no means impaired the free-will of the serpent’s seed.
God provided the Lamb; the sin-power slew him. The Father, in His love for us, spared not His own Son, but delivered him up for us all’ (Rom. 8:32). He appeared to temporarily forsake him (Matt. 27:46), but He did not slay him. We must give all the facts their due place.
God declared His righteousness (and that of His Anointed One) in bringing ‘again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant’ (Heb. 13:20); and — what is equally important in requiring from sinners a recognition of His own supremacy and their submission to His prescribed formula of association with the crucified but risen Christ as a condition of the extension of His divine ‘forbearance’ in ‘the remission of sins’ (Rom. 3:25, 26).
It is not denied that the Mediator of the New Covenant was thus its first beneficiary. Yet the fact to which such constant prominence is given in the Scriptures is that indicated by the Mediator himself: ‘This cup is the New Covenant in my blood, which is shed for you’ (Luke 22:20). Therefore, let ‘A’ and ‘B’ both now and ‘until the Kingdom of God shall come’, rejoice unitedly in their grand mutual privilege in Christ.
The Gathered Manna
Israel’s gathering of the manna in the wilderness, and Paul’s application of it to spiritual Israel, provide us with a salutary lesson. One’s abundance should be a supply for the other’s want, ‘that there may be equality’ (2 Cor. 8: 14). Instead of one ‘side’ doting on its own particular collection of ideas, and despising the other’s, we should rather pool our findings for the common good, and so equalize.
The two vital qualifications of the Lamb of God for his great redemptive work, were (1) that he should be of our nature; (2) that he should be a sinless bearer of it. Our troubles have arisen, in measure, through one side over-emphasizing the first fact, and the other side, the second. We have not been allowed to forget either aspect. The one is the complement of the other, and when both are given their proportionate place in our minds we have balance instead of bias.
Ere long, in God’s mercy, may we have love and understanding and concord instead of suspicion and discord. All the facts indicate that our hoary division cannot honorably continue. It has grown too feeble to stand. ‘Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away’.
Can any man forbid reunion? If so, upon what grounds?
Fellowship with the Maker and Brethren