Brother John Ullman's Teaching on When the Lord's Body Was Cleansed

An attempt is being made by certain brethren to misrepresent the teachings of the late brother John Ullman. I would really rather not document this, but out of respect for the late brother Ullman I cannot remain silent. One would have thought that his public disavowal, during his lifetime, of the doctrines listed below would have been sufficient to demonstrate his disagreement with the claims that:

1. The Lord arose from the grave with a nature different than the one he crucified. And
2. There is a "law of sin" and a "law of death"

A recent correspondent from the Vines ecclesia in Australia has referred me to pages 40 and 41 of brother Ullman's book on first principles. There we read [emphasis found in original]:

"In cursing the serpent, God made a covenant with the woman: a continuing state of enmity and antagonism would exist between the two 'seeds' — that is, those who defy God and walk in the way of error, and those who understand and uphold the truth of God, and walk in His way. Ultimately, the seed of the woman (singular) would overcome the power and influence of the serpent, by overcoming the flesh. Jesus was literally the seed of the woman, not of the man — for Yahweh was his father, not Joseph. THE STRUGGLE BETWEEN THE FORCES OF TRUTH AND ERROR (i.e., THE PERFECT CHARACTER OF GOD VERSUS THE DICTATES OF THE FLESH) TOOK PLACE IN THE BODY OF THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. AT THE HOUR OF HIS DEATH HE HAD COMPLETELY OVERCOME THE FLESH, SINCE HE DIED A SINLESS MAN: THUS HE EFFECTIVELY 'CRUSHED' THE HEAD OF THE SERPENT. See Heb. 2:14; 9:26; 1 Cor. 15:23-25; 1 Jhn. 3:5. Having overcome sin, and the sin-nature, Christ is now able to redeem us from the power of death, through his own perfect sacrifice; all, in accordance with the will of his Father: Acts 2:22-24; 1 Jhn. 1:7-9; Isa. 53:10.

"The serpent must be seen, above all else, as typifying the flesh as the source of all sin. In Num. 21:4-9 the people of Israel sinned 'against God and against Moses'. For this especially rebellious sin, Yahweh sent 'fiery serpents' among the people, as a result of which 'much people of Israel died'. When the people cried unto Moses, confessing their sin, God instructed Moses to make a serpent of brass (brass is a Biblical symbol for the flesh), and to affix it to a pole. All who had been bitten by a serpent and who looked upon the brasen serpent, in faith, would live. Commenting upon this incident, Jesus said: 'As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up...' (Jhn. 3:14). 'And I', he said later, 'if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. This he said, signifying what death he should die... '(Jhn. 12:32-33). The Lord was demonstrating that in his life of perfect obedience to his Father and in his death by crucifixion, he would be putting to death the evil propensities of the flesh; thereby showing that the flesh could produce no good thing, and that only Yahweh is wholly righteous. The flesh is thus rightly related to death: Jhn. 6:63; Rom. 7:18-21; Gal. 5:17-21. Christ's example for us to follow: Rom. 6:1-13. From what the serpent was, and what he produced, we must learn that there is nothing in the natural man which can bring forth anything whatever to the glory of God. The carnal mind can never be brought into subjection to the will of God, so it must be crushed by the influence of the indwelling of the word of God (Rom. 8:7,13). Therefore, our lives must be ordered and directed according to divine principles, if we are to become pleasing to God. The promise of Gen. 3:15, then, is a promise of mankind's eventual restoration to God, through the seed of the woman gaining the victory over the serpent power in the struggle against sin. Christ therefore died that he might live for ever (Jhn. 10:17; Phil. 2:8-9; Acts 2:24). Now, the power of his perfect sacrifice can provide a covering for the sins of all who draw near to God through Christ, 'in spirit and in truth' (1 Jhn. 1:9; Jhn. 4:23-24)." (John Ullman, First Principles of the One True Faith, p. 40-41).

The new claim is that brother Ullman in the first paragraph teaches "When the Diabolos was Destroyed" from his physical nature, "at the hour of his death". A few points therefore are worthy of attention:

1. Those who claim this doctrine also refer us to "When and Where Did Christ Make the One Great Offering" #8. There brother Thomas says the Jesus-altar was cleansed, "After the veil of his flesh was rent and before he awoke at the early dawn of the third day". The time given by brother Thomas is inclusive of the time in which the Lord lay dead. But brother Ullman says "at the hour of death". Now, which timing is accurate? Frankly, those making this claim on brother Ullman's writings don't care. All they want is to find 'supporters' who teach the Lord was raised with a different physical nature than that which he crucified.
2. Those who would interpret this paragraph to teach this new doctrine will be disappointed to find that brother Ullman directly contradicts this misinterpretation of his words just 32 pages later. I'll quote it below. But to deal directly with this paragraph:
3. Brother Ullman does not say the Lord cleansed his own body at his crucifixion or during the time he lay in the tomb. He says "thus he effectively 'crushed' the head of the serpent." This language is the figurative language of prophecy. The word 'effectively' often means "for all practical purposes". The word 'crushed' is in quotes indicating that the reader is to consider how the word is to be understood, and not necessarily taken literally. Of course, all this is a mute point to those who wish to claim brother Ullman supported their new doctrine.
4. Notice that in the second paragraph brother Ullman uses the word crushed in relation to our own lives: "The carnal mind can never be brought into subjection to the will of God, so it must be crushed by the influence of the indwelling of the word of God." Those who quote these paragraphs interpret the first 'crushed' in quotes as absolute when the context suggests they should not, but they would never interpret the later use of the word the same way, even though it appears without quotes or a qualifying adverb!

But decisively, on page 73 of brother Ullman's book, we read,

“In giving himself as a perfect sacrifice — the anti-type of the Passover Lamb — the Lord Jesus Christ was the first one to benefit from his sacrifice, since, after his resurrection, he cast off forever the shackles and proclivities which are inherent in Adamic nature: Hebrews 5:1-2; 9:12 (Lit., "he found for himself eternal redemption" — third person, masc, middle voice); 9:22; 13:20.” (The First Principles of the One True Faith, p. 73)

Those who teach this new doctrine of the Lord being cleansed at his death must reinterpret this quote such as claiming that "shackles" refers to the Lord being dead, even though brother Ullman applies shackes to that which is "inherent in Adamic nature", that is to say, a living body. I've never heard of brethren who believe dead bodies have proclivities. A plain reading of the English leaves the honest-minded reader with one conclusion: Brother Ullman taught that the cleansing of the Lord from "the shackles and proclivities inherent in Adamic nature" did not occur until "after his resurrection" from the grave.

Brother Ullman Spells Out His Position on the New Doctrine

In 2003 brother Keith Cook published an article entitled What is Diabolos. I asked brother Ullman for his comments on this article. Commenting upon Keith Cook's misuse of Romans 7:6 brother Ullman wrote:

"To say that 'by this means sin was destroyed in the Lord' is a statement used to try and prove that the Lord came forth from the grave redeemed from sin in the flesh, and therefore he came forth in another nature, or another form – to which Brother Thomas says: 'Passing through the grave cleanses no one…' He says of the Lord’s body: 'It was restored to its former life.' (His italics). 'He rose again, the same Jesus that was buried.' He also wrote: 'All that comes out of the ground is cursed, and unclean; so that even the body of Jesus and the bodies of the approved saints… require to be justified, rectified, purged, or perfected… In such a removal of curse and uncleanness, a higher nature is developed…' (Again, J.T.’s italics)." (John Ullman, January 20th, 2003)

Now, any honest-minded reader would see that brother Ullman was rejecting this teaching that the Lord came forth from the grave "in another nature" than that which he crucified. And he quotes brother Thomas saying, "passing through the grave cleanses no one" and brother Thomas likens the pre-resurrectional (pre-immortal) state "of Jesus and the bodies of the approved saints" as equivalent.

In the same article written by Keith Cook, brother Cook wrote,

"By this means, the ‘diabolos’ was prevented from surviving the sacrifice that was made specifically for the destruction of sin, although the nature in which it had dwelt, remained a mortal one, or a nature still capable of dying, and therefore still unclean because subject to the law of death, until immortalization, when death, the effect of sin, was also destroyed." (Keith Cook, January 2003)

Brother Ullman's wrote the following note in response:

"This is a dubious contradiction. If 'the law of sin' was destroyed at Christ’s death, how could he have come forth from the grave 'still unclean because subject to the law of death' and as a 'mortal' man? Sad to say, the illogical reasoning in the above paragraph is nonsense. I might add that I have never heard this teaching until a Brother John Wilson (Adelaide) brought it to light over here in Perth a few years ago, claiming it is taught in Catachesis (which it is not). Tragically, it was then taken up by Keith and Graeham."  (John Ullman, January 20th, 2003)

These particular brethren, in interpreting pages 40 and 41, ought not make brother Ullman contradict himself. He denounced the claim as a "dubious contradiction", "illogical reasoning", and "nonsense". Brother Ullman testifies he had never heard this doctrine until roughly the year 2000. No doubt some held it before then. But brother Ullman was a brother with wide experience and close participation in the work of Logos over many years. He rejected these teachings in his life and they should not be foisted upon him during his sleep.

Finally, as to the claim of "the law of sin" and "the law of death" being distinct, brother Ullman wrote me on a number of occasions about the move Logos was making away from the historicalunderstanding of "the law of sin and death". In September 2004 he wrote to me saying,

“Graeham is digging a deeper and deeper hole for himself. He is now openly proclaiming and defending his 'law of sin' and 'law of death' theory with some forcefulness. I believe this unwise article will cause a furore in Adelaide, to say nothing of ramifications elsewhere. It seems evident that GEM is now acting to defend his own position, and is doing so without receiving any wise advice. (Compare many of the kings of Israel!).” (John Ullman, September 22, 2004)

Brother Ullman told me and at least one other brother that he had instructed GEM not to publish anything else he had ever written in the pages of Logos. No one should be left wondering why.