"The Likeness of Sinful Flesh"
"It was necessary for this that God should 'send his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Have we to infer from that word 'likeness' that the flesh of Christ only resembled sinful flesh, and was not actually such? A similar phrase occurs in Phil. 2:7: 'he was made in the likeness of men.' This likeness was identity; Jesus was a man. And that Jesus partook of the flesh common to men is decisively proved by Paul’s words in Heb. 2:14, where terms are added together to establish that Jesus shared the flesh and blood of the children whom he came to lead to salvation (verse 10). 'Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death.' To appreciate the emphasis of this language, the reader is recommended to read the passage through several times, omitting in turn the words 'also,' 'himself,' and 'likewise,' and then with all three words omitted. It will then be apparent that their work is to emphasize the 'sameness' of Christ’s nature and ours.
"But why did not Paul say in Rom 8:3, 'God sent His Son in sinful flesh'? Because he was stressing the sameness here also, with the additional fact that though like us in nature he was not like us incharacter. He was the sinless One." (John Carter, The Christadelphian, 1930, p. 8)
"Question 19.—The body of Christ, then, was not under condemnation?
"Answer.—Certainly it was; just as much as Mary’s, from which it was formed. As the seed of David according to the flesh, it was weak and mortal. (1) Paul gives prominence to this; and it forms a vital element of the testimony concerning the Messiah. If he was the seed of David according to the flesh, he stood, in the days of his flesh, in all the relations of David, but had some superadded relations, by reason of being the root of David, as well as his offspring (2.) To say that ‘God sent His Son, not in simple flesh, but in the likeness of it,’ is to deny the doctrine which John made necessary for acknowledgment among the first century believers. He said ‘many deceivers are entered into the world who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an anti-Christ. Look to yourselves that ye lose not those things which we have wrought' (3). If it be asked, In what flesh did Jesus come, the answer is, David’s flesh (4); for he is the son of David (5). Still more decisive is the declaration of Paul that he took part of 'the same' flesh and blood as that possessed by his brethren (6). Paul does not contradict this in saying that 'God sent forth His Son in theομοιωματι of the flesh of sin.' The word ομοιωματι is truly translated 'likeness,' but it is likeness in the sense of identity, and not in the sense of such a resemblance as should leave room for its not being 'the same.' This is evident from the derivation of the original word. It comes from the verb ομωο, to join together, which, when united with a substantive termination, gives the idea of a joining together, resulting in a producing of the same. This is illustrated in ομοιομντριος, born of the same mother; ομοιοπατριος, sprung from the same father; ομοιοονσιος, of like substance, that is, the same substance; ομοιολογια, uniformity of speech, that is, the same speech; ομοιοαρκτο, beginning alike; ομοθνμος, of one mind; ομοθεν, from the same place. If the word 'like' be substituted for the word 'same,' in all those cases, we shall have the sense in which Paul speaks of Jesus being sent forth in the likeness ομοιωματι of the flesh of sin. It is the sense expressed in his other declarations, that Jesus partook of the same flesh and blood as the children, and that he was of the seed of david according to the flesh. Even of the brethren, of whose absolute identity with the flesh of sin no question will be raised, Paul uses the apparently loose expression, 'We have borne the image of the earthy.'—(1 Cor. 15:49.) 'Image of the earthy' and 'likeness of sinful flesh' are of equal force, and both mean an actual participation of the nature spoken of. The fact that ομοιωματος is sometimes used in the sense of resemblance, cannot exclude the evidence that, as applied to Jesus, in the matter of sinful flesh, it means resemblance in all particulars 'the same.' To say that 'God sent His Son, not in simple flesh, but in a likeness of it,' is to wrest the word. God sent His Son in the flesh of David, and as that is what would be called 'simple flesh,' Jesus was sent in simple flesh—the same.
1. —See numerous proofs in support of Answers to Questions 12 and preceding questions.
3. —2 John 7.
(Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 319-320)
"11.—Paul says that God, sending forth His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, 'condemned sin in the flesh' (Rom. 8:3). How could this have been if there be no such thing as 'sin in the flesh,' and if Christ was 'not sinful flesh but a likeness of it'?
"12.—Moses says that Adam begat a son 'in his own likeness' (Gen. 5:3). Does this mean that the son so begotten was, in any sense, of a dissimilar nature to his father? If you say No, as you are bound to, why do you contend that a 'likeness of sinful flesh' is dissimilar to sinful flesh itself?" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 462, Questions and Questions, 1873, Questions against the Clean Flesh heresy)
"Some experience distress at the association of Jesus with sinful flesh in any sense. They seek relief in the expression of Rom. 8., that God sent His own Son 'in the likeness of sinful flesh.' Let us consider this. What about this likeness? Moses informs us (Gen. 5:3) that Adam begat a son in his own image and likeness. You would not say the word 'likeness' means that Seth was, in any wise, different from Adam. There is the word 'image.' Suppose the word 'image' had been used in this remark of Paul’s: 'sent His Son in the image of the earthly nature.' We should then have had this argument—'Ah, you see it is only the image; it is not the nature itself.' Whereas, Paul says concerning ourselves in 1 Cor. 15:49: 'We have borne the image of the earthy, and shall also bear the image of the heavenly.' Shall we say we have not borne the earthy? Do not we bear the earthy? Yes. Therefore in apostolic language 'earthy' and 'the image of the earthy' mean the same thing. Upon the same principle, sinful flesh and the likeness of sinful flesh mean the same thing. And we shall find that the same they are." (C.C. Walker quoting Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1910, p. 537)
"‘Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature. Hence, the flesh is invariably regarded as unclean. It is therefore written, ‘How can he be clean who is born of a woman?’ ‘Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.’ ‘What is man that he should be clean? And he which is born of a woman that he should be righteous?’ . . . This view of sin in the flesh is enlightening in the things concerning Jesus. The apostle says, ‘God made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin’; and this he explains in another place, by saying that He sent His own son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh' in the offering of his body once. Sin could not have been condemned in the body of Jesus if it had not existed there. His body was as unclean as the bodies of those he died for; for he was born of a woman, and 'not one' can bring a clean body out of a defiled body, for 'that,' says Jesus himself, 'which is born of the flesh, is flesh' (page 114). [bro. Boulton quoting from Elpis Israel]
"The importance of this teaching cannot be over-estimated. John’s warning is most explicit. 'Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God; and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world' (1 John 4:2, 3). As a member of the race, partaking of sin’s flesh (Heb. 2:14), Jesus was in a position, in harmony with the righteousness of God, which indeed was declared thereby (Rom. 3:25), to receive in himself the sentence pronounced against sin. Thereby 'in that he died, he died unto sin once' (Rom. 6:10), and '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' (Rom. 8:3)." (W.H. Boulton, The Christadelphian, 1912, p. 161)
"'If, in the days of his flesh, the Lord had not been perfectly human, what resemblance would there have been between the lifting up of the prepared body on the cross, and the lifting up of the serpentin the wilderness? If that body had not been perfectly human in all things like ours, how could God have ‘sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh?’ Is not sinful flesh perfectly human? Is it not ‘flesh of sin?’ This is all the ‘perfect humanity’ men are acquainted with. If the body crucified had not been thus perfectly human, how could sin have been condemned in it? Or how could ‘the Anointed’ ‘his own self have borne our sins in his own body upon the tree?’ Read Rom. 8:2; 1 Pet. 2:24, and think upon them.
"'To say, then, that Jesus was not made in all things like to this—that he had a better nature—is to say that ‘Jesus did not come in the flesh.’ This is the heresy that Elpis Israel is condemned for not teaching. It is true Elpis Israel affirms that Jesus came in sinful flesh; but that notwithstanding the plague of such a nature, he was obedient in all things—‘did no sin, nor was guile found in his mouth’; in which sense there was no sin in him; ‘he was without sin’; thus, ‘he who knew no sin, was made sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him.’'
"'The reverse is not a modern heresy, but an element of ‘the mystery of iniquity,’ which was festering in ‘the heritages,’ in the days of the apostles. ‘Many deceivers,’ says John, ‘are entered into the world, who confess not that the anointed Jesus is come in flesh. This is the deceiver and the anti-Christ’ (2 John 7)." (The Christadelphian, 1918, p. 145)
"It is styled 'the flesh' (1Joh. 4:2), which Jesus himself says 'profiteth nothing' (John 6:63), being 'weak' and 'corruptible' because of sin. It is therefore fitly styled 'sinful flesh' in Rom. 8:3, a passage in which that is expressly affirmed by an inspired apostle, which you expressly deny in your letter, namely, that 'God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh'; that is, as John puts it, 'in the flesh.' So you see you have (unwittingly I hope and believe) joined the ranks of Antichrist, and in this are 'not of God' (1 Joh. 4:3). This is really the revival of the old 'Renunciationism' of over 40 years ago. It is being revived in Sydney, on the Pacific Coast in California, and in some places at home. 'Those who understand among the people' will not give place to it now any more than they did then, or in the apostles’ day." (The Christadelphian, 1916, p. 107)
"SINFUL FLESH'
"Brother H. (in Australia) writes:—'May we ask of your courtesy an early answer to the four following questions: Taking for granted that Adam was created ‘Good, ’ 1, Did the sentence of death bring about any change in Adam? 2, When is a babe’s flesh sinful flesh? 3, Did Jesus come in sinful flesh? 4, Why is human nature weak? At this distance the time will seem long to be anxiously waiting your answer.'
"Brother H. (in Australia) writes:—'May we ask of your courtesy an early answer to the four following questions: Taking for granted that Adam was created ‘Good, ’ 1, Did the sentence of death bring about any change in Adam? 2, When is a babe’s flesh sinful flesh? 3, Did Jesus come in sinful flesh? 4, Why is human nature weak? At this distance the time will seem long to be anxiously waiting your answer.'
"Answers.—It is testified that Adam was created 'good' along with the other works of God (Gen. 1:4, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31). This series of affirmations concerning the 'goodness' in question, when rightly considered, enables us to perceive that by 'good' is here meant well adapted to the purpose of the Creator according to His mind. It does not here qualify character, for Adam was in a state of primeval ignorance and innocence.
"1.—Yes, the sentence of death consigned Adam to the dust whence he was taken, 'death by sin' (Rom. 5:12). It was as real and tangible a matter as was the sentence of leprosy against Gehazi (2 Kings 5:27). It is as well to be satisfied with such scriptural declarations as these, and not to get lost here in philosophical hair-splittings."2.—First let us make sure what we understand by the phrase 'sinful flesh.' It is found but once in the scriptures. in the much-tortured passage, Rom. 8:3: '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 as an offering for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.' The R.V. margin truly tells us that the English phrase 'sinful flesh' is the equivalent of 'Gr. flesh of sin.' Obviously this here means simply human nature, and not flesh guilty of actual sin or transgression, for God’s own son was not so. Seeing that this cannot be denied, our correspondent’s question in relation to God’s own son resolves itself into this: When did the Word become flesh? Surely when Jesus was born (Matt. 1:18–25; Luk. 2:1–21). The fact that Mary was 'purified,' and Jesus 'circumcised,' shows that the 'flesh' in question was 'flesh of sin,' 'the seed of David according to the flesh' (Rom. 1:3). David, who, unlike his 'Greater Son,' was not innocent of actual sin or transgression, in his psalm of penitence (Psa. 51:5) bewailed his inheritance of the flesh: 'Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.' And here again our correspondent has the answer to his question, which answer of course, he knows very well; but he is proving the editor by hard questions, or perhaps we should rather say, seeking to elicit answers that will dispose of mistaken accusations of toleration of heresy on the part of the editor. The pamphlet The Blood of Christ contains some good instruction on the subject.3.—Answered above.4.—Because it is 'flesh.' It is Jesus who says so: 'Watch and pray that ye enter not into temptation, the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak' (Matt. 26:41; Mark 14:38). 'It is sown in weakness' (1 Cor. 15:43). Christ 'was crucified through weakness' (2 Cor. 13:4).
"We have no sympathy with doctrines that contradict these scriptural statements, no matter what may be affirmed to the contrary. See our leading articles in this and the last issue of this magazine." (C. C. Walker, The Christadelphian, 1924, p. 61)
No comments:
Post a Comment