Words and Meanings Defined

Words and Meanings Defined

 A Definition of Biblical Words and their Meanings.

Words can have different meanings to different people, and can cause doctrinal confusion, where it ought not to exist. It is not the words we say, but the ideas we convey, that are so important to determine a view presented. Therefore when discussing matter upon which contention might be felt, it is vital that the context of statements be examined, to determine exactly what the writer or speaker is presenting. It is “meanings” and not mere words, that we need to understand.
The subject of the atonement, being the fundamental principle of Truth that clearly separates us from the various denominations of christendom, has always been subjected to challenge. It was so in the days of the apostle John, who forthrightly declared: “many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist” (2Jn. 7). Similarly, concerning the brotherhood in his day, Jude found it necessary to “exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints” (v. 3). Whenever the Truth is under stress from the influence of those with pernicious doctrines, it is the duty of brethren to stand faithful to that which we have been taught. The following observations were made by Bro. John Carter in an article written in February 1958 to assist in the work of unity in Australia.

Comment by Brother Carter

WORDS are the instruments of thought and should be so used that they convey as simply and clearly as possible the writer’s meaning. There are two sources from which failure may arise: the writer may not use the best words or he may use some which have a particular meaning for himself which is not the usually understood meaning; or the reader may come to the words with his own understanding of their meaning and so read his ideas into them. There are accidental misuse of words, or some failure in clarity, where we should not make a man an offender for a word. One need only study a book like Fowler’s English Usage to realize the pitfalls in using one’s mother tongue.
It is easy to get into the way of using clichés, hackneyed phrases, slogans, which are often but slovenly ways of avoiding careful thinking. In this as a community we are not free from blame. Each controversy seems to develop a terminology of its own, and words are bandied about without regard to meaning. What, for example, does the phrase “clean flesh” mean? It depends whether it is used by a gymnasium master, a doctor, or a theologian: and the latter would find it understood in many senses. There are other words and phrases such as “constitutional sinner,” “sinner in Adam,” “condemnation”—”racial” and “adamic.” Our literature has its share of such words. They have stood for something by the first user, but it would appear that they have also more than once stood for something else to later readers, unaware of the background when first used.
In the interests of truth we need to define our terms and avoid ambiguous words. To commend the point we wish to make we quote from Bro. Roberts in 1894: “Most controversies originate in the use of terms that are elastic from their vagueness. There are terms that are suitable enough as the casual description of some passing phase of truth, but which become sources of confusion when used as a precise and leading term of definition. Technicalities, also, that are serviceable enough when they represent an understood and accepted meaning, become causes of mere bewilderment if used for demonstration in controversy. In all controversy ideas ought to be expressed in the language of literal precision. When they cannot be so expressed in a case of dispute, and when, instead of literal definition, technicalities are pressed forward in the argument, it is the indication of a mental vacuum in that case, and a cause of mere jangle to disputants... The mind is wearied and distressed by a mechanical use of Bible terms. The mind cannot be satisfied with words when they fail to convey ideas.”
As far back as 1875 ambiguous phrases caused difficulties and Bro. Roberts wrote: “He (Jesus) was a sufferer from the effects of sin in all the items of weakness, labour, pain, sorrow, death and in this sense (as a partaker with us of the effects of sin) has been described as a ‘constitutional sinner,’ or one subject to the sin-constitution of things. But as this phrase gives occasion to disingenuous cavil, it is well to discard the phrase and look at the meaning which has been stated.” (Christadelphian, 1875, p. 375).
Not many years ago we took part in a conversation where a few brethren were present. The nature of Christ was being discussed, and we reminded the brethren that if we would fully see Jesus we must remember that besides being of our nature he was sinless. We were at once informed that Jesus was not sinless, and in answer to a surprised enquiry, “What do you mean?” was told that he was not sinless, since he had “sin in the flesh.” The brother on investigation believed that Jesus had done no sin, but it took quite a time to establish in the minds of those present that the word “sinless” applied to character. We might as a parallel case ask what “sinful” means, and whether using the phrase “sinful flesh” some are not attaching to the words a meaning they do not really bear. Is it the strict antonym of “sinless”?
The phrase “sin in the flesh” has been sadly wrenched from its context and been made to do duty for several ideas. Like the words “sinful flesh” it occurs but once in the Scriptures (Romans 8:3) and then in a context where correct translation is important. To get the precise thought of Paul we must remember he wrote “flesh of sin” or “sin’s flesh.” We are being censured by a “minority” critic for something written recently on this verse. We therefore quote some words of Bro. C .C. Walker which in our judgment give the correct approach. We reproduce them in the hope that the brethren who are standing aside will weigh them well, for they are in danger of being led back to the false theories promulgated sixty years ago. Bro. C. C. Walker was answering an enquirer in 1929 and said: “It so happens that we have written upon this subject in an article on ‘The Atonement’... Rom. 8:3 is a difficult passage to understand, and the words ‘sin in the flesh’ do not, in our judgment, constitute a ‘term’ in the passage, either in the logical or grammatical sense. The main grammatical ‘terms’ in the case— the subject and predicate — stripped of all adjuncts are these: ‘God condemned.’ Sin is the object of condemnation. Write it with a capital to harmonize with the figure of personification that runs through the whole of Paul’s argument here, and to harmonize also with the doctrine of Jesus Christ concerning the ‘casting out,’ ‘judgment,’ or condemnation, of ‘the Prince of this World’ which is Sin (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11). This he enunciated when he was about to offer the sacrifice for sin of which Paul is speaking in Romans 8... The words ‘in the flesh’ are the extension of the predicate, the focus of the ‘casting out,’ ‘judgment’ or ‘condemnation’.”
This answer we ourselves endorse as a definition of the “logical and grammatical” sense of the verse. We must correctly analyze a sentence to understand its meaning. The essential statement is “God condemned Sin” and if we ask where did the condemnation take place, the answer is “in the flesh”— the flesh concerned being the flesh of Jesus. We have just re-read what we wrote nearly thirty years ago in The Letter to the Romans. We have nothing to change: we might today expand some of the thoughts. The literal facts behind Paul’s words are that Jesus never yielded to any impulse to disobey God; he was always obedient; whereas all others had become servants to the flesh he was servant of God. Sin had been obeyed by all others, but Sin could establish no claim over Jesus. He shared our mortality and our temptations; he inherited the effects of sin in Eden at the beginning of the race as we all do. In the first Adam Sin triumphed; in the last Adam it was vanquished and in Paul’s powerful statement God “condemned Sin,” and at the same time justified Jesus.    — John Carter.

VARIOUS TERMS DEFINED

Physical.  The word is an adjective; i.e., it describes something (the noun). In regard to our nature it describes the actual composition of the body’ its corporeal, or material condition. The things that affect the body are described as a “physical” status. The physical laws of nature are those laws that maintain the universe, and our condition in the form it is, and which govern all our activities and applications.

Physical Change. A change in the size or form of a substance, without any alteration in the composition of its molecules, or without its producing or becoming a new substance. Thus boiling water becomes steam (a gas), but when steam is condensed it reverts to water. When Adam transgressed, he brought into being the “law of sin” (Rom. 7), and while this was a physical change through the introduction of a law, it did not change the physical elements of his body. Thus, when the stove becomes hot, it has been physically changed by heat, but the stove remains the same.

Nature. The condition of being, whether in a mental or physical identity. Thus it must be placed into a context, the subject of the matter. “Human nature” is the essential qualities of human existence. For example, Heb. 2:14-16 defines nature as “flesh and blood,” relating it to the physical body. Bro. Thomas defines nature as “flesh and blood” (see The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 501 in an article entitled Aaron and Christ, based on Heb. 2:14-16. See also Rom. 2:14, 27, 1Cor. 15:44, 46; Gal. 2:15). The sin-nature came about by the introduction of the “law of sin” which is a condition that causes us to inevitably bend towards sin. This condition requires redemption, which is available as the result of a sacrificial shedding of blood as demonstrated in the Lord’s redemption (Heb. 9:12; 13:20). By this means the natural “flesh and blood” body will be redeemed and changed to spirit-nature through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ (Heb. 9:23-24).

Flesh. This relates to both a physical material (as in flesh and bones; cp. Gen. 2:23), or to the workings of sin’s flesh (ie., the thinking of the flesh; cp. Rom. 8:12-13). The context determines the application to either one or the other. Paul describes the individual person (the “me” of Rom. 7:18) as “flesh.” Thus it relates to the natural man, the flesh and blood body that requires redemption (Rom. 8:23).

Sin. There are two principal acceptations of the word, used to describe cause and effect, and both inevitably and absolutely connected. The cause was firstly transgression against God’s Law occasioned in the disobedience of Adam (1Cor. 15:34). The second use of the word describes a physical condition of mankind which resulted from the original transgression of Adam: they are born with ungodly propensities, being the “physical law” in their members which results in transgression (Rom. 5:12, 21). In Adam’s posterity the cause is found in our ungodly physical propensities; the effect is seen in actual transgression. The first is our misfortune; the second is our crime. All that is not “of God” is sin (1Jn. 2:16).

Sin’s flesh. Describing the condition of our nature, which was caused by Adamic transgression and received hereditarily by all his posterity. Flesh became the “property” of sin in Eden, and its dominion is the reason for our conflict (e.g., Rom. 7). Adam’s flesh and blood body (a dust-created body) was not changed as a result of his transgression; however the divine sentence of death (the “dominion of death”) was imposed which brought his mortality into effect. Thus the effect of God’s sentence was not so much a change of nature as the withholding of the change of nature to immortality. Bro. Thomas defines sin’s flesh as “this body with all its constituents and laws” (Eureka, vol. 1, p. 248). The body was created with its constituent members, which were controlled by “laws.” But these laws were not designed to give the body “interminable existence.” They were designed to control the activities of the body-members. After creation, the human pair were subjected to Elohistic education, so that the brain’s function of commencing the activities of these laws was in an obedient direction. But when they mentally embraced serpent reasoning, the brain then misdirected the laws into an inordinate and forbidden direction, and transgression was committed by the members of their bodies which were controlled by those laws. This is the physical defilement which all of Adam’s posterity inherited. At death, the laws in the body cease to function, and the members of the body are unable to move.

Law of sin and death. A hereditary physical condition in which the presence of sin-biased propensities are found, and the ultimate effect of mortality is experienced. This “law,” described as the “sentence” on Adam, was the result of his transgression and became thereby fixed in his members. The “Law of Sin” is only found in mankind; the “Law of Mortality” relates to all living creatures, and brings all creation to the dust. The “law of sin in the members” is the diabolos, because it is that which causes a person to “step over the line” of divine law and instruction. In death, this law has no further effect, as the propensities (the “constituents and laws” = Eureka, vol. 1, p. 248) are unable to operate in any way. In the case of the Lord Jesus, this law (diabolos) was annulled in the sense that it was never again to be allowed to function in the body of one who had overcome its influence, and submitted to the divine procedure required for its destruction (Rom. 2:14).

Corruptibility. A physical condition relating to the deterioration of the body, and particularly when death has occurred. A body can be dead, but not corrupting (see Psa. 16:10; 49:9; Acts 13:36-37). Bro. Doctor Thomas states: “Corruption — the returning of a lifeless earthy body to its primeval dust.” (Catechesis).

Mortality.  A description of the life, and thus indicating being subject to death. Its opposite, “immortality” is a life that is continuous, based upon the nature of the Father (1Tim. 6:16). Thus mortality is a condition of terminable life (see Job 4:17; Rom. 6:12). Bro. Doctor Thomas explains the term as “an earthy body in living action, or life manifested through an earthy body, and therefore from constitution of the body, terminable life” and “Death is the cessation of the life of an earthy body.” (Catechesis).

Diabolos. Describes the ungodly propensities (the “law of the members”, BASF, #5) found in every fibre of the flesh which draw a person away from the divine will. Paul’s description in Heb. 2:14 is that the diabolos “has the power of death.” The “wages of [the] sin is death” (Rom. 6:23), and “the body of sin” (Rom. 6:6) which was developed as the result of Adam’s transgression. Diabolos therefore equates with sin. Yahweh has demonstrated how He will destroy this power in the way in which He dealt with it in the flesh of His Son (Rom. 8:3), by the sacrificial death of the Lord, and in the redemption of his body. In like manner He will similarly deal with the diabolos in His people (Rom. 8:3). The diabolos is a physical condition which remains within the person until released from its power by death (Rom. 7:1; Heb. 2:14).

Sin in the flesh. Describes the physical defilement that God condemned in the Lord’s sacrifice, and destroyed in his change to Spirit-nature. While the word “sin” is a synonym for the flesh, sin in the flesh is physically activated by, and controlled by, the “law of the sin” — that is, the law that belongs to the sin (Rom.7).

Defilement. The condition of either mind or body; the first through transgression; the second through birth. Defilement needs removing, that the person might be whole morally and physically — the first is achieved by forgiveness; the second by redemption.

Brain matter. The physical element of the body which is the “thinking part of the flesh,” in which are inscribed all the impressions which assail the person, and which receives and interprets the impulses of the body. This “brain matter,” called by Paul, “one of the members of the body,” and which is included under the influence of the “law of sin and death,” commences identically in every individual, including the Lord Jesus, but its composition is changed by the influences that are received in the circumstances of life (something like the change of data in a computer chip). So the “brain matter” contains the elements which constitute the individual character of a person.

Mind. The process of the brain, which, being exercised by its own experiences, determines the actions of the individual in thought and deed. This is the “mental” (thinking) process. Evil thoughts are generated in the mind, caused by the sin prone propensities of the flesh, and defile the person (Mark 7:22-23). The “thinking of the flesh” is the origination of thoughts which gratify the sin-nature. The “thinking of the spirit” is the origination of thoughts which honour the wisdom of Yahweh, who is spirit (Isa. 11; 50:4).

Moral. The activity of the person, based on the thinking of the brain, and influenced by the impact of flesh or the spirit Word understood. This is the “moral” (active) process. Actions manifest to others the state of the mind, whether actions of faith and truth (from the spirit-mind) or those of ignorance and wicked works (from the flesh-mind).

Carnal Mind. The thinking of the flesh activated by allowing the ungodly propensities to dictate evil thoughts. The carnal mind is at enmity against God (Rom. 8:6), and must be destroyed. Once developed, it can only be destroyed by death. The Lord Jesus never allowed evil thoughts to defile his mind, and therefore did not develop the carnal mind, which in all others is part of their moral defilement. He remained the perfect manifestation of the mind of the Spirit (Phil. 2:5).

Condemnation.  The overriding principle fixed in our members that brings us under the divine sentence of mortality. The BASF clause 8 employs this term which has been defined in clause 6 as “the law of sin and death,” and in Clause 5 as a “physical law of his being”; all imposed by the divine sentence of clause 5, which resulted in our first parents becoming subject to mortality, or deathfulness; and their flesh fixed with a tendency toward sin.

Temptation. Used as the appeal to the propensities of the flesh to incite the occurrence of transgression. Used as trial, it represents an external element by which mankind is tested.

Reconciliation. The means whereby men at enmity with God might find the means to be reconciled to him. Reconciliation is the new relationship man has with God which results from Atonement in baptism (ie., by the “covering” of repented sins).

Atonement. The Hebrew word “kaphar” signifies “to cover; to cleanse; to purge” and hence relates to the divine means of removing from the pure eyes of the Father the presence of defilement or sin. God “covers” transgressions in His willingness to forgive after repentance, because the act of transgression cannot be undone.  But to “cleanse” or “purge” is necessary to remove the physical uncleanness or defilement that has been inherited by all of Adam’s posterity as the result  of his embracing the thinking of the serpent. The context determines which definition applies.

Atonement (or Sacrifice) for Nature.  The phrase indicates that our nature, now “unclean” needs to be “cleansed,” and this is done by the blood of the everlasting covenant, as affirmed in Heb. 9:23-24, etc. It does not, of itself, have any guilt factor, as there was no guiltiness by the altar or the other elements required in divine worship, but which, all of them, required the blood of atonement (purging). See Heb. 9:12; 9:23-24. When Paul said that “your life is hid with Christ in God” (Col. 3:3), he used a Greek word krupto which means to conceal by covering, the essential meaning of the atonement.

“For.” A preposition used in regard to the benefits of sacrifice (i.e., a sacrifice for sin), the word is used to describe the benefit accruing to the offerer who finds himself affected by transgression, and by sin’s flesh. Such a sacrifice in regard to transgression achieves the benefit of forgiveness (1Jn. 2:2); in regard to sin’s flesh the benefit is achieved in the redemption of the body (Rom. 8:23). For example, if a person is put in gaol “for burglary” it is not to develop those skills, but to redeem him from his crime. The Greek ga, can be understood in the sense “because of,” so that sacrifice is considered necessary because of the presence of sin-nature, or the presence of transgressions — the result being the removal of both conditions. Christ came to remove “the sin of the world” (singular in John 1:29, hamartia; indicating the cause of sin).

Andrewism. This term is used to describe perceived beliefs of JJ Andrew. It must be understood that all that he wrote was not doctrinally erroneous. For example, his 1882 publication “The Doctrine of the Atonement” was published and endorsed by Bro. Roberts, and contains a great deal of exposition in harmony with the atonement explanations of Bro. Thomas. JJ Andrew did not deviate from the Truth until 1894, and the deviation was on the matter of resurrectional responsibility (as evidenced in the change of the BSF in clause 24).  [In regard to the atonement, the resurrectional responsibility issue caused him to teach that all members of the human race are alienated from God at birth through possession of sin’s flesh with its lusts; that all are subject to divine wrath because of Adam’s transgression; that the covenant of baptism is the basis of responsibility, by which the curse of Adamic condemnation is removed, thereby allowing such to resurrection, and that those outside the baptismal covenant are not subject to resurrection and judgment. These teachings are erroneous, and are defined as: [1] All members of the human race are alienated from God by birth through possession of sin’s flesh with its lusts; [2] All are subjects of divine condemnation from birth; [3] Babies, including Jesus, are hereditarily subjects of God’s wrath and alienated; [4] Those baptised into the blood of the covenant have Adamic condemnation legally removed and thereby become entitled to resurrection; [5] Unbaptised persons are not subject to resurrection and judgment. The Truth is that [1] We suffer a misfortune, not a crime, through our birth, and alienation is a moral term employable where reconciliation is also possible; [2] We are alienated by ignorance and wicked works (Col. 1:21); [3] God’s wrath is against wickedness, of which Jesus was not subject; [4] Adamic condemnation, which defines our physical human condition, is only abrogated through glorification to immortality; [5] All those who know the will of God, whether they obey it or not, are subject to resurrection and judgment.

Metonymy: The use of the name of one thing for that of another to which it has some logical relation, as “sceptre” for “sovereignty,” or “death in the pot” for the poisonous contents. It has the connection of cause as to the effect. Thus literal flesh is called “sin,”  or “sin’s flesh” because it came from transgression in the beginning, and manifests the physical condition of that defiled state. It comes from the Greek meta (after) nomy (name); thus an “after name,” resulting from what the original becomes.

Synonym: A word with the same meaning as another. Gr. syn (same) nomy (name)..

Impulses: Described “physically, as a stimulus conveyed by the nervous system, muscle fibres, etc., either exciting or limiting organic functioning.” Thus an automatic reaction to the physical needs of the body.

Abrogate: Repeal, cancel, annul, render powerless. Thus the sacrificial offering of the Lord Jesus, rendered the physical diabolos of no effect upon him (Heb. 2:14), so that his victory over death and the grave was assured. The “grave could no longer hold him,” as his perfect offering had completed his victory over the flesh.