Ten nations

In dealing with the Gentile nations, TEN may be a significant number:

The land promised to Abraham is defined as the land of ten kings (Gen 15:19-21).
The great image of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream is struck on the feet and toes (ten?) by the little stone which represents Christ (Dan 2).
The great and terrible fourth beast of Dan 7 had ten horns (Dan 7:7;24; cp Rev 12:3; 13:1; 17:7,12).
Ten nations are listed in Psa 83, which make themselves the enemies of Israel.
Ten nations are listed in Eze 38:1-6, as participating in (or, in some cases, perhaps, witnessing) the great invasion of Israel in the Last Days.

Isaiah has a section of ten “burdens” upon (presumably) Gentile nations:

Babylon, or Assyria (Isa 13; 14:1-27),
Philistia (Isa 14:28-32),
Moab (Isa 15; 16);
Damascus (Isa 17);
Egypt (Isa 18-20);
the desert of the sea (Isa 21:1-10);
Dumah (Isa 21:11,12);
Arabia (Isa 21:13-17);
the valley of vision (Isa 22); and
Tyre (Isa 23).

Jeremiah has a similar grouping of approximately ten Gentile nations, against which he issues oracles of warning and doom: Egypt (Jer 46); the Philistines (Jer 47:1-7); Moab (Jer 48); the Ammonites (Jer 49:1-6); Edom (Jer 49:7-22); Damascus, or Syria (Jer 49:23-27); Kedar and Hazor (Jer 49:28-33); Elam (Jer 49:34-39); and Babylon (Jer 50; 51).

In one single prophecy (Jer 25), Jeremiah enumerates approximately ten nations (perhaps as many as 13 or 14, depending on how they are grouped), nations that are destined to drink the cup of the LORD’s wrath — namely, Egypt, Uz, the Philistines, Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre and Sidon, Dedan, Tema, Buz, Arabia, Zimri, Elam, Media, and Sheshach (a cryptogram for Babylon).

Ezekiel also has a similar grouping of judgments against Gentile nations — not quite as many in number: Ammon (Eze 25:1-7), Moab (Eze 25:8-11), Edom (Eze 25:12-14), Philistia (Eze 25:15-17), Tyre (Eze 26-28:19), Sidon (Eze 28:20-24), and Egypt (Eze 29-32)

There is quite a bit of overlapping among the different lists, but there are still somewhat more than ten nations in total which are identified in these lists. Quite possibly, however, ten should be seen as a figurative number, of ALL the enemies of Israel in the last days — which will surely be defeated and destroyed by divine Power if they attack God’s People and Land.

Notice, for example, how “all languages and nations” seem to equate to TEN men in Zec 8:23.

Sometimes, however, TEN seems to signify “more than a few” or “quite a large number”, without being specific: Gen 31:7,41; Num 14:22; Job 19:3; 1Sa 1:8; Ecc 7:19.

Also see Lesson, Beasts, heads, and horns.

Ten toes, identity

Rome’s 10 Toes and the Gap

“Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron — for iron breaks and smashes everything — and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay. In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever” (Dan 2:40-44).

It has been argued that there must be a continuity between the iron Roman Empire and the ten toes, part of iron and part of clay. And that the theory that the ten toe kingdoms (and the ten horns, and the ten kings of Revelation) are 10 Arab nations do not provide such continuity. Implicit in this argument is the assumption that the ten Roman toes represent ten independent European nations that arise out of Roman territory in medieval times and beyond.

However, what sets Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome apart from all kingdoms in world history is that each successively ruled over Jerusalem and the Land of Promise. This leads one to think that the ten “Roman” toes must also participate in the “treading down” of Jerusalem, and this was never true of the European provinces listed by JT in Eureka.

So were there ten “toes” which did participate with the Roman power in the subjugation of Jerusalem? What follows are quotations from Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews”:

“So Vespasian sent his son Titus from Achaia… to Alexandria, to bring back with him from thence the fifth and tenth legions, while he himself, when he has passed over the Hellespont, came by land into Syria, where he gathered together the Roman forces, with a considerable number of auxiliaries from the kings of that region” (III, i, 3).

As the Roman legions, with their “considerable number of auxiliaries”, were making their way into position for an attack on Jerusalem, Jewish rebels mounted an attack on Ashkelon (III, ii), which was repulsed.

“There was also a considerable number of auxiliaries got together, that came from the kings Antiochus [Syria] and Agrippa [Galilee], and Sohemus [Iturea], each of them contributing one thousand footmen, that were archers, and a thousand horsemen. Malchus also, the king of Arabia, sent a thousand horsemen, besides five thousand footmen, the greatest part of whom were archers; so that the whole army, including the auxiliaries sent by the kings, as well horsemen as footmen, when all were united together, amounted to sixty thousand, besides the servants, who, as they followed in vast numbers, so because they had been trained up in war and the rest, ought not to be distinguished from the fighting men” (III, iv, 2).

Then there were the Idumeans, who were particularly vilified by the Jews, because they at one time seemed to be fighting on Israel’s side (IV, v).

So a brief survey of Josephus’s “Wars of the Jews” yields at least six Roman “toes” assisting in trampling down Jerusalem: Syria (with other kings of that region), Ashkelon, Galilee, Iturea, Arabia, and Edom.

Further, Josephus also mentions that Jerusalem was situated in the center of ten other provinces in the whole of Judea, over which it reigned supreme (3:3:5). Some of these other provinces not listed above might well have provided “auxiliaries” to the Roman legions for the assault on Jerusalem, making a full total of ten.

So the continuity is this: Rome (with its Arab auxiliaries) trampling down Jerusalem in AD 70. Then a long “gap” while there are no appreciable numbers of Jews in the Land of Promise, until the Last Days… when the Jews return in large numbers to Palestine, forming an independent nation of Israel, and when out of the old Roman Empire there arise another ten or so Arab “toe kingdoms” to challenge Israel in the Land.

Tests

THE WORLD TEST. Is it worldly? Will it make me worldly to do it (Joh 15:19; 1Jo 2:15-17)?
THE QUALITY TEST. Is it good for me physically, emotionally, and spiritually (Rom 12:9)?
THE TEMPLE TEST. Can I do it when I remember my body is God’s temple and must not be marred or misused (1Co 6:19)?
THE GLORY TEST. Will it glorify my Lord, or will it on the other hand possibly bring shame to his name (1Co 6:20; 10:32)?
THE BLESSING TEST. Can I honestly ask God’s blessing on it and be sure I’ll not regret doing it (Pro 10:22; Rom 15:29)?
THE REPUTATION TEST. Is it apt to damage my testimony for the Lord (Phi 2:15)?
THE CONSIDERATION TEST. Am I being considerate of others and the effect this might have on them (Rom 14:7,21)?
THE APPEARANCE TEST. Will it look bad? Does it have the appearance of what is wrong or suspicious (1Th 5:22)?
THE WEIGHT TEST. Could this slacken or sidetrack me in running the Christian race (Heb 12:1; 1Co 9:24)?
THE COMING OF CHRIST TEST. Would I be ashamed to be found doing this when he comes again (1Jo 2:28)?
THE COMPANION TEST. Can I invite Christ to go with me and participate with me in this (Mat 28:20; Col 3:17)?
THE PEACE TEST. After having prayed about it, do I have perfect peace about doing it (Col 3:15; Phi 4:6-7)?

The OT is…

The Old Testament is a book of unfulfilled prophecies… fulfilled in his life by Christ the prophet.

The Old Testament is a book of unexplained ceremonies… explained in his death by Christ the priest.

The Old Testament is a book of unsatisfied longings… satisfied in his resurrection by Christ the king.

Things new and old

God has given instructions to His servants in many different ways; He has spoken “at sundry times and in divers manners”, as the apostle puts it, and He has chosen very different instruments to convey the messages. The perfection of divine wisdom was revealed in a divinely perfect man who is to us “wisdom and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Divine wisdom has also come to us through very imperfect men who have been “wisdom” and warning.

In many ways the most remarkable example of divine instruction coming through a faulty man is in the writings of Solomon the son of David. Solomon would seem to have been the most favoured of mortals; the son of a great king and the heir to the throne, coming into power at the most favourable time in his nation’s history when all enemies were subdued and when even Egypt sought alliance with the growing strength of Israel. Solomon had wealth in abundance, he had bodily health and such vigorous mentality that according to Jewish tradition he could speak all the languages known in his day. Finally, in addition to all this God granted to him a special wisdom so that he became a vehicle for the conveyance of divine instruction to mankind. He is the supreme example of the ease with which natural blessing may be turned into spiritual curse, of how a man who knows may fail to perform, and of how the treasures of divine knowledge and wisdom may be contained in an “earthen vessel” which perishes even while it conveys imperishable truth.

In writing of the Proverbs there is no difficulty in applying the lessons to the circumstances of our own time. They are astonishingly “up to date”. There is vitality and freshness in the Scriptures after all the centuries that have passed since the words were written. A sermon only a hundred years old seems old-fashioned and dead, but the words of scripture are continually new and living. They keep pace with a growing intelligence, yielding further messages as we are able to receive them. “The dark sayings of the wise” often seem perfectly clear and simple. They do not in any way obscure truth or confuse the mind of a reader. They are simple in the first message that they yield, but that is not all that they contain. The darkness is in hidden depths.

The Proverbs are not intended merely for one class of reader or one grade of intelligence. Their appeal is universal. “A wise man will hear and increase in learning, and a man of understanding will attain unto sound counsel.” Indeed in this as in so many human lessons, those who would seem to need the instruction least get the most out of it, while those who need it most refuse to listen. This incongruity is noted in the first chapter of the book. It is the wise man who hears and increases his knowledge. “Fools despise wisdom and instruction.”

There is a fundamental truth regarding the human mind which everyone ought to know and which in all probability everyone will claim to know when once it is mentioned. We refer to the fact that the mind is so constituted that we are bound to learn gradually. Some can take the successive steps much quicker than others, but it is always by steps that we make any advance. The best way of learning, in fact the only satisfactory way, is in the manner of a child. It involves much repetition; we pass repeatedly over the same mental track, but each time makes it a little deeper, a little clearer, and perhaps carries it a little further. A man has so much in his mind that he may be able to put thoughts together much more rapidly than is possible for a child, but in this essential matter of forming really fresh impressions, our aptitude diminishes as we grow older. There is no such thing as sudden enlightenment, for we are not able to receive it. It is possible to concentrate a great amount of instruction in few words, but those few words are unintelligible to a man who is unprepared. We have heard lectures which would express a great mass of truth to hearers who were well prepared, but the only definite impression made on a complete stranger was a headache. Indeed, as we have often remarked, a book entirely filled with new ideas would be as unintelligible as one written in an unknown tongue. Take a text book regarding some technical matter that you have never studied and you will make nothing of it. It may be an excellent book giving all the main facts that are known concerning the subject under review. It would be sudden enlightenment if you were able to grasp the meaning of it all at a single reading, but that is impossible. If you want to understand it you have to learn in the ordinary way, gradually building up from that which you already know and with much repetition as knowledge is extended. In other words, you have to learn in the manner of a child.

It is worth while to emphasize this truth, for so many people in later life, and perhaps especially in this generation, become impatient of instruction that might help them. Some teaching is rejected because it is new and they can make nothing out of it, everything else is despised because it is old and they know all about it. With less aptitude for receiving new impressions than was once theirs, they decline to pass with childlike interest along a well trodden path of thought and so they never carry it any further.

This is not an age for serious reading. Millions of people with all the advantages of modern education pass through life without ever reading a single good book. They read a great deal of trash and perhaps Macaulay’s dictum is true that it must be a very bad book to be worse than no book at all, but this is only a negative recommendation. Much can be learned by good reading if the student is willing to learn in the manner of the inquiring and interested child, pleased to renew acquaintance with that which is well known and anxious to understand that which seems new and obscure.

One who tries to write with the sole object of serving and helping must have two questions before his mind. Can I give some instruction or suggest thoughts that will be helpful? Can I write in a manner sufficiently interesting for people to read? It is easy to do either of these things alone but difficult to combine them, yet the combination must be effected if we are to achieve our purpose. The Lord Jesus suggested the right way. The instructed scribe must be like a householder bringing forth from his treasures things new and old. They must not be all new or no one would understand, but if possible some of the treasures must be new at least to some readers. It may be possible, too, to show the old in a new light so that even those who have forgotten how to learn may be stimulated into a revival of interest. It is not merely in the matter of humility that we need to become like children. Those who seek the Kingdom of God also need the childlike interest in things both new and old and the child’s readiness to learn, step by step, carrying the old thought a little further.

(PrPr)

Shema, the

“Echad” (Heb “one”) is a numerical adjective which appears 650 times in the OT, and at no time does this word itself carry the idea of plurality. While it is true that “echad” is sometimes found modifying a collective noun — one family, one herd, one bunch, etc — the sense of plurality actually resides in the compound noun, and not in the word “echad”! Echad appears in translation as the numeral “one”, and also as “only”, “alone”, “undivided”, and “single.” Its normal meaning is “one and not two”, as we find in Ecc 4:8. Abraham was “only one man” (“echad”) in the NIV’s rendition of Eze 33:24, and he was “alone” (“echad”) in the KJV translation of Isa 51:2.

Koehler and Baumgartner’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (1967) clearly states that the fundamental definition of “echad” is “one single.”

The truth of this is reaffirmed by a Trinitarian professor of theology who concedes that the popular Trinitarian argument from “echad” is even more frail than the argument from “elohim” (ie based on Gen 1:26; see Lesson, Gen 1:26, “Us”): “Even weaker is the argument that the Hebrew word for ‘one’ (“echad”) used in the Shema (‘Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord’) refers to a united one, not an absolute one. Hence, some Trinitarians have argued, the OT has a view of a united Godhead. It is, of course, true that the meaning of the word may in some contexts denote a unified plurality (eg, Gen 2:24, “they shall become one flesh”). But this really proves nothing. An examination of the OT usage reveals that the word “echad” is as capable of various meanings as is our English word one. The context must determine whether a numerical or unified singularity is intended” (G Boyd, “Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity”).

Shepherds and hirelings

“It is unfortunate that the chapter division dissociates the shepherd allegory from the discussion reported in Joh 9. Jesus had convicted the Pharisees of blindness and incompetence in dealing with the flock of God. As bad shepherds they had cast out the healed man, but the good shepherd had found him” (CJo 119).

“And they cast him out. Jesus heard they had cast him out; and when he found him…” (Joh 9:34,35). “Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out” (Joh 6:37).

With bold actions and words, Christ dramatically set himself apart from the other teachers of his nation. They pompously dictated and threatened; he lovingly instructed and comforted. They “cast out”; he “found” and recovered. They “cared not for the sheep”; he “laid down his life for the sheep” (Joh 10:15), and in so doing became the model for all shepherds, overseers, and elders. Doubtless Peter had “the Good Shepherd” in mind when he wrote:

“The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock” (1Pe 5:1-3).

The true ecclesial shepherd, then, must do the works of his Master:

He must feed others first (Eze 34:2).
He must strengthen the diseased or weak (Isa 40:11; Eze 34:4; Rom 15:1).
He must bind up what is broken (Eze 34:4).
He must seek what is lost (Eze 34:4,11,16; Mat 18:12; Luk 15:4-7).
He must assume a personal responsibility in the face of a threat.
And he must be prepared to protect the flock at all costs: “Take heed to all the flock… remember that I warned you” (Act 20:28-31).

The characteristics of a true shepherd are set in contrast to those of a “hireling”:

“But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth… The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep” (Jon 10:12,13).

It is said of the hirelings or false shepherds that they “feed (or shepherd) themselves” (Eze 34:2).

“The shepherds shepherded themselves! They were prepared to sacrifice the flock for themselves, whereas they should have extended their self-sacrificing devotion to the flock and carefully pastured or shepherded it” (HPM on Ezek 30).

“From these words one would think it transparently obvious that in time of danger to the flock from false teachers (‘After my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock’ — Act 20:29), a man’s duty will keep him with the flock in order that he might exert every possible effort in defence of those less able than himself to combat spiritual evil. Yet in sharp contrast to this the attitude of some seems to be: ‘There is a wolf in the flock. I have told the sheep to chase it away, but they do nothing of the sort. So now it is time for me to get out as quickly as I can.’ The incisive word of the Lord for men who act in this way is the shameful term: ‘hireling’….Without doubt those who withdraw to an exclusive ‘pure’ fellowship are hirelings in the sense in which Jesus used the term, for their separatism is solely a means of furthering, as they think, their own safety and benefit” (HAW, “Block Disfellowship”, Tes 43:340).

A hireling may seek to benefit materially by his labors, and this of course is a serious offence (1Pe 5:2; 1Ti 3:3,8). But, as the Pharisees so amply demonstrated, one may be a “hireling” even if he cares not at all for financial profit. He may be a “hireling”, for example, in caring for power and authority, or for honor and respect without responsibility. He may be a “hireling” if he abandons his flock when the “wolf” (or false teacher — Act 20:29) approaches. He thus shows his true character when he saves himself first — subjecting his employer’s “investment” to possible ruin. As members of the one Body, we should develop the mind-picture of ourselves as “partners” in the enterprise, not mere employees! The employee is nothing but “hired help”, a “hireling” who works for his “wages” and nothing else (but the “gift” of God, which we hope one day to receive, is not “wages”; our proper “wages” can only be death — Rom 6:23). The hireling is not — as he should be — a “partner” or a “partaker”, who expects to participate (the significance of “fellowship”) in the ultimate profits of the enterprise.

“The disciple of Christ who is worth his salt will not beat a hasty retreat, or even a reluctant retreat, at the signs of danger, but will persistently and courageously set himself to antagonize and expose every symptom of apostasy which may manifest itself in his own ecclesia” (Ibid, p. 341).

In the brotherhood, therefore, the brother is best off when he cares first and foremost for the welfare of his brethren.

“Let any who are troubled by current contentions and worried by vague apprehensions as to their own responsibility for ‘condoning’ evil ponder these words of the Good Shepherd again and again. He calls men to be good shepherds after his own pattern, giving themselves in devoted service and care to the harassed flock, and even laying down their lives for the sheep. How strange that it does not seem to dawn on rigorous separatists that they testify for Truth against error far more efficiently by staying where the error is and witnessing against it than by fleeing to a ‘holier than thou’ sanctuary, from which to carry on a campaign of scolding across a great gulf which they themselves have fixed” (HAW, “False Teachers”, Tes 36:212).

Is our salvation endangered by “fellowshiping” “doubtful cases”? Let the “shepherds” of the Bible — types every one of the “Great Shepherd” — give the answer:

Abraham — whose near kinsman Lot strives with him and then departs (Gen 13:6-8) — nevertheless moves swiftly to save his ungrateful nephew from bondage (Gen 14). Later he even intercedes for him with the Lord when his life is threatened in Sodom (Gen 18): Notice that his boldest approach to the Lord is to beg for the sparing of others (Gen 18:27,28), when it might reasonably be argued that they did not deserve to be spared.
Joseph — whose brothers plotted against him and would have taken his life — still found the love to forgive them and take them into his “fellowship” again when they were in great distress: “Now therefore fear not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them” (Gen 50:21).
Moses became the great intercessor for a nation which was obviously at fault. His fervent prayer needs no comment (Exo 32:32).
David, who always viewed Israel not as his kingdom but as his flock, wrote the words from his youthful experience which might well be termed “The Shepherd’s Manual” (Psa 23). When he might easily have laid the blame for shortcoming upon a stiff-necked nation, and the sword of the angel was poised to continue their destruction, David the shepherd-king pleaded their “doubtful case”: “Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: but these sheep, what have they done? [He refuses to point out that they have done even worse!]… Let thine hand, I pray thee, be against me” (2Sa 24:17).
Daniel did not mind “fellowshiping” his “doubtful” brethren; he even went so far as to pray on their behalf, taking the sins of the nation upon his innocent shoulders: “We have sinned,” he prayed, “and have committed iniquity… neither have we obeyed the voice of the Lord… therefore the curse is poured upon us…” (Dan 9:5-15).
And Paul, the greatest of the shepherd-apostles, could wish that he were accursed for the sakes of his brethren the Jews (Rom 9:1-3), who were not even in Christ! If this could be his attitude towards enemies of the Truth, how much more should we yearn for and seek unity and brotherhood with those whom we know to be in covenant-relationship with Christ? “So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd” (Joh 10:16, RSV).

The day will soon come when before the Lord of all the earth will be gathered his flock (Mat 25:31-46), his one flock — for they will then be treated as one, all the man-made barriers swept away. It is then that the true force of the King’s question will come home to each of us: ‘What have you done for my brethren? for my sheep?’ How confident would we feel to say the following?: ‘Lord, I did the best I could for a little while; but then I heard of a false doctrine somewhere or other, and I left as quickly as I could. After that I really don’t know what happened to them.’

Simon of Cyrene

There is no mark of course, but I have felt Here on my shoulder to this very day The grinding weight where that rough timber lay And left, an hour or two, its burning welt. I had no thought, no patriotic zeal, That morning there a hero’s part to play; Only, I saw his eyes which, as he lay Down in the dust, held mine in mute appeal. “A curse on you, Roman dogs,” I cried, And never felt the lash the soldier swung; Then we went together side by side, My back bent double as we climbed the hill To Calvary where on the cross he hung; And I am proud to say I feel its burden still.

(adapted, from Wadsworth)

Sin, how was Christ made?

The testimony of the earliest Christadelphians indicates how 2Co 5:21 and related passages should be read: how, in fact, “sin” can be applied to the sinless one. Christ. The brief quotations that follow are even more powerful in their fuller contexts.

“For He (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Co 5:21).

“The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place ‘the transgression of the law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust .. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’. that is, ‘flesh full of sin’… Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature’ (JT, Elp 126,127).
“To be ‘made sin’ for others is to become flesh and blood… This perishing body is ‘sin’… ‘Sin’, in its application to the body stands for all its constituents and laws” (JT, Eur 1:247,248).
“Christ made sin, though sinless, is the doctrine of God” (JT, Xd 1873:362).
“(God) sent (forth) Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence he was ‘made sin’ ” (RR, Xd 1873:402).
“Was he not made sin in being made of a woman, who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?” (RR, 1873:463).
“Was he (Christ) ‘made sin’ (2Co 5:21)?” Answer (RR): “Yes” (Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, Q 93).
“Christ was ‘made sin’ in being born into a sin-constitution of things” (RR, 1898:390).
“God ‘hath made him to be sin…’ Partaking thus of the flesh, he was ‘this corruptible’, though in character sinless, and so needed cleansing and redemption as much as his brethren… As to ‘hamartia’, it means sin, and not sin-offering: and we speak from a careful comparison of all the passages in the NT and the LXX (Septuagint). In all the 170 or more occurrences in the NT it is never rendered sin-offering” (CCW, 1922:222).
“…2Co 5:21… cannot be rendered ‘made to be a sin-offering’ without doing violence to the meaning of the word ‘hamartia’ and forcing upon it a meaning that it will not bear” (WJ Young. 1922:312).
“The Truth is only maintained by faithful contention, and however much we dislike contention, earnest men do not hesitate to contend for the faith… It has been sound Christadelphian teaching from the days of Dr Thomas that Jesus was ‘made sin’ by being, born a member of the human family… Jesus by birth was made sin… If he was not related to sin, in either nature or character… . then a grave injustice was done when he was allowed to suffer on the cross, and there was no declaration of’ God’s righteousness… The publishing of such teaching [ie, that which denies this doctrine — GB] reveals again the absence of that unity… without which union is not possible” (John Carter, 1940:40,41).

“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” (Rom 8:3).

“…’that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of ‘death that is, the devil’, or sin in flesh” (JT, Elp 99).
“Sin… had to he condemned in the nature that had transgressed… . For this cause. ‘Jesus was made a little lower than the angels… that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is the diabolos’, or elements of corruption in our nature, inciting it to transgression, and therefore called ‘Sin working death in us’ ” (JT, Eur 1:106).
” ‘Become sin for us’, ‘sin… condemned in the flesh’… . ‘our sins… borne in his body upon the tree — These things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of that physical principle, styled ‘Sin in the flesh’ ” (JT, 873:361).
Question: “What do you mean by sin in the flesh’…?” “Answer: “David, by the Spirit says, in Psa 51:5: ‘Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’. [Paul adds] (Rom 7:17): ‘I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Now, what is this element called ‘uncleanness’, ‘sin’, ‘iniquity’, etc?… There is a principle, element, or peculiarity in our constitution… that leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things… Because the invisible, constitutional physical inworking of death in us came by sin, that inworking is termed sin. It is a principle of uncleanness and corruption and weakness… For this reason, it is morally operative: for whatever affects the physical, affects the moral. If no counter force were brought into play, its presence would subject us to the uncontrolled dominion of disobedience, through the constitutional weakness and impulse to sin… The body of the Lord Jesus was this same unclean nature in the hand of the Father” (RR, 1874:88).
“Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed).
” ‘Sin in the flesh’ will ultimately be the subject of justification through the blood of Christ” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 111, paraphrased).
“Sin-in-the-flesh is only the root principle that leads to the various forms of diabolism. All these forms are in harmony with the root… Judas was a devil (Joh 6:70) through the action of sin-in-the-flesh; he hanged himself; that form of sin-in-the flesh was gone; but sin-in-the-flesh survived in all the world. The devil that imprisoned the Smyrnean brethren (Rev 2:10) was a form of sin-in-the-flesh. That form passed away, but generic sin-in-the-flesh continues in all the world. So when it is said that the devil is bound for a thousand years, it is that form of sin-in-the-flesh which exists in the organized governments of the world that is bound: but sin-in-the-flesh remains an ingredient in human nature during all the thousand years, until flesh and blood ceases to exist on earth” (RR, Xd 1898:201). [Aside: It is interesting to note that Robert Roberts uses “sin-in-the-flesh” — with hyphens — eight times in this short answer. He does not always use the phrase with hyphens, but he does most often use the phrase in a hyphenated sense: that is, as though it were a unit. There are some today who refuse to use (or to allow others to use) the phrase in such a fashion, who in fact deny that the flesh is related to sin in any meaningful fashion.]
“Paul had to say, ‘sin dwelleth in me’. ‘I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind’… Sin, as disobedience, arose in (Adam and Eve’s) case from a wrong opinion concerning a matter of lawful desire, and not from what Paul calls ‘sin in the flesh’. It became sin in the flesh when it brought forth that sentence of death that made them mortal… and implanted in their flesh a law of dissolution that became the law of their being. As a law of physical weakness and death, it necessarily became a source of moral weakness. That which originated in sin became a cause of sin in their posterity, and therefore (is) accurately described by Paul as ‘sin in the flesh’ ” (RR, 1898:343).
“Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures: it has a physical as well as a moral application… The Apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh… ‘the body of sin’… ‘Sin… wrought in me’… ‘Sin revived’… ‘Sin… beguiled me’ ‘Sin… working death to me… sin which dwelleth in me’. ‘The law of sin which is in my members’… Sin as spoken of in these verses must necessarily be considered as something different from actual transgression, It is ‘sin’ within that leads to sin in action” (BHeb 181,182).

“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” (Rom 8:3).

“Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin” (JT, Elp 128).
“Children are born sinners or unclean because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’, or sin I his is a misfortune, not a crime” (JT, Elp 129).
“Joshua [in Zec 3:3,4]… clothed in filthy garments… represents the Christ… clothed with the ‘flesh of sin’, in which, Paul tells us, ‘dwells no good thing’ ” (JT, Eur 1:58).
“His nature was flesh and blood (Heb 2:14), which Paul styles ‘sinful flesh’, or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called ‘sin’ because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression” (JT. 1873:50l).
“In what sense did Christ come in sinful flesh?… Rom 7, immediately preceding, supplies the sense of the words ‘flesh of sin’ used in Rom 8:3. Gal 5 [which defines the ‘works of the flesh’ — GB], and all New Testament allusions to the subject, teach that the flesh of human nature is a sinful thing” (RR, The Slain Lamb, p 19).
“Jesus was the sin-nature or sinful flesh of Adam… that sin being thus laid on him he might die for it” (RR, 1873:407,408).
“How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, ‘made in the likeness of sinful flesh’, if he had not died for himself as well as for us?” Answer (RR): “He could not” (Res Resp Debate, Q 715).
” ‘Sinful flesh’ is a generic description of human flesh in its total qualities” (RR, 1895:24).

“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, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14).

“What is that which has the power of death?… It is the ‘exceedingly great sinner SIN’, in the sense of the ‘Law of Sin and Death’ within all the posterity of Adam, without exception. This, then, is Paul’s Diabolism… ‘He that committeth sin is of the diabolism, for the diabolos sinneth from the beginning’… All this is perfectly intelligible when understood of ‘Sin’s flesh’ ” (JT, Eur 1:249).
“Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed). [This “sin” was not ceremonially laid upon Christ at some point during his life, or even as he hung on the cross: it was part of him from the moment of his birth, in his very nature and flesh and mind. We must appreciate this fundamental truth.]
“The release began with himself. He destroyed that hold which the devil had obtained in himself through extraction from Adam… The devil was not destroyed out of Christ. He was destroyed in him. We have to get into Christ to get the benefit. In him we obtain the deliverance accomplished in him” (RR, 1875:375).
“What is meant by the devil in those places (Heb 2:14 and 1Jo 3:8)?” Answer: “I believe it means sin in the flesh” (The Good Confession, Q 120).
” ‘The Devil is a scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh, in its several phases of manifestation…’ This old Christadelphian definition [from the Declaration — GB] is palpably true, and does not need revising; and no exception to its application can be made in Heb 2:14… Dr Thomas wrote upon the subject with a grasp and lucidity that were almost apostolic… ‘Sinful flesh was laid upon him “that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”, or sin in the flesh (Heb 2:14)’ [Elp Isr Part 1, ch 3]… Yes, ‘the Devil’ that had the power of death is ‘Sin’, and Christ has ‘destroyed’ him ‘through death’ in himself individually, and will yet destroy him from off the face of the earth” (CCW, 1913:539,541).

“(Christ) who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being, dead to sins should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed” (1Pe 2:24).

Notice how the New Testament passage is a citation of the Old Testament: “All we like sheep have gone astray: we have turned every one to his own way, and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isa 53:6).

“The flesh was the ‘filthy garments’ with which the Spirit-Word was clothed (Zec 3:3); the ‘iniquity of us all’ that was laid upon him; ‘the soul made an offering for sin” (Isa 53:6,10)” (JT, Eur 1:108).
“If the principle of corruption had not pervaded the flesh of Jesus… sin could not have been condemned there, nor could he have borne our sins ‘in his own body’ ” (JT, Eur 1:203).
“The filthy garments of flesh, styled his’ ‘iniquity’ ” (JT, Eur 2:19).
In a reference to the baptism of Jesus: “Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom 8:3), came to John as the ‘Ram of Consecration’, that his inwards and his body might be washed” (JT, 1873:501).
” ‘Iniquities laid on him’. This is a figurative description of what was literally done in God sending forth His Son, made of a woman… This was laid on Jesus in his being made of our nature” (RR, 1873:400),
“If… our sins were laid on him in the same way as… on the… animals… (ceremonial… imputativeness)… where then is the substance of the shadow? The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type; the real putting of sin on the Lamb of God in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance” (RR, 1873:462).
“He kept himself from ‘his iniquity’ [RR, 18:23]… he must at all times have possessed perfect knowledge of any thought or impulse arising from the flesh contrary to the purpose of his Father, thus leading him to view his temptations as ‘iniquities’ more numerous than the hairs of his head (Psa 40:12). While the ‘iniquity’ that took hold of him was in his flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing… the character which he manifested was perfect… He could say: ‘There was no soundness in his flesh’ [Psa 38:7] because He himself said the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63). This testimony is amplified by the spirit in the apostle Paul thus: ‘In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Jesus also could say: ‘There is no rest in my bones because of my sin’ when realizing fully, as he did, that there could be no freedom from temptation so long as he was of flesh and blood nature” (Henry Sulley, 1921:499,500).

“(Christ) who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s for this he did once, when he offered up himself” (Heb 7:27).

“(From Paul’s statement in Heb 7:27), it follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under Adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh” (RR, 1873:405).
“If Christ’s offering did not comprehend himself… how are we to understand the statement of Paul (in Heb 7:27)?” (RR, 1873:466).
“It was ‘for us’ that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself… ‘He was made sin (for us who knew no sin), and does not sin require an offering?” (RR, 1875:139).
“As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first” (RR, 1875:375).
“There is no doubt Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering for himself” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 290, paraphrased).
“As the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary he should offer for himself…” (RR, 1896:341).
“He did these things (‘was made perfect’, ‘was saved from death’, ‘obtained redemption’)… ‘for himself’ first… for us only as we may become part of him” (RR, LM 174).
“The sacrificial work… ‘For himself that it might be for us’ ” (RR, LM 178).
“Does Heb 7:27 teach that Jesus offered for his own sins?… Yes, it says so plainly” (CCW, 1902:148).
“That Christ had to offer for himself is testified in Heb 7:27… The reason why is revealed, namely, that he might himself be saved by his own blood. See Heb 13:20” (CCW, 1910:547).
“His sacrifice… was first for himself, and then for the people… To say that it was… not for himself, is to contradict the word of God, and to take a step at least towards that doctrine of Antichrist… The salvation was by ‘the blood of thy covenant’ (Zec 11:11), by which both the ‘King’ himself and his ‘prisoners of hope’ are ‘brought again from the dead’. These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated and should not be now” (CCW, 1921:313).

***

The Scriptures speak of Jesus as being “made… sin”. This statement leads inexorably to the conclusion that Jesus needed to offer for himself as well as for us. In fact it was only in offering for himself that he could offer for us. If he had not offered for himself, and obtained eternal redemption for himself, then what possible benefit could there be for us in being baptized so as to be “in him”? He only obtains for us what he has already obtained for himself. The suggestion that Christ’s death was merely a ceremony or ritual by which we draw near to God, and that there was no real benefit in it for him, is in direct contradiction to the teachings of John Thomas and Robert Roberts and other early Christadelphians. Therefore it is a theory very much to he repudiated, on that ground as well as the ground of the Scriptures.

Sisters, the role of

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Gen 2:18).

“And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (vv 22,23).

“For we [brethren and sisters] are members of his [Christ’s] body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:30-32).

“For a man… is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” (1Co 11:7).

The principles which govern the relationships and responsibilities of men and women are set out in Genesis and continue right through Scripture. Neither the passing of time, nor the environment, nor social custom, can affect or change these principles or the requirements they place on the individual. They stand from Eden until Christ returns and establishes the Kingdom on the earth.

Woman was created as a “help meet [suitable]” for man. Adam allowed Eve to usurp his authority and teaching, and as a consequence sin entered the world. God then placed His pattern, by which men and women should live and worship, into the earth; and this pattern, and the principles governing it, are carried down through time into the first-century ecclesias, and should be seen in His household today.

Eph 5 shows the link with Eden clearly. As Eve came from Adam, so the saints come out from Christ and reflect His glory. The sister is representative of the Bride of Christ, the ecclesia, made up of both brethren and sisters. The brother is representative of Christ. The sisters work alongside the bridegroom, the brethren, who take responsibility for the ecclesia until the true Bridegroom comes. This does not affect the status of the sister in the sight of God, for both brethren and sisters are joint heirs of salvation; yet the pattern is clear: God — Christ — man — woman. Christ represents God, man represents Christ, and the woman represents both male and female in the figure of the Bride of Christ, the ecclesia. In fulfilling this pattern neither men nor women lose their equality in Christ, but they fulfil differing responsibilities, which for the sisters are many, varied, and extremely important.

Sisters: when the ecclesia comes together

In the formal meetings of the ecclesia (breaking of bread, public talks, Bible classes, fraternal gatherings, baptisms, etc) the sister is under the restriction of the Word of God. It counsels her not to usurp the authority of the brethren, but to display that quietness of spirit through her demeanor and head-covering that becomes one representing an ecclesia subject to Christ. Her discreet behavior reflects that disciplined mind which Scripture enjoins her to cultivate. In these gatherings the sister remains silent, but does join in the praises of hymns, gives assent to the prayers, and by her presence witnesses to the faith of the ecclesia and the love of the ecclesia for its Lord and God (1Co 11:1-16; Eph 5:22-33; 1Ti 2:9-15; 3:11).

Sisters: as helpers in Christ

There is a great deal of work for sisters within the household. Teaching other sisters, teaching children (in Sunday school, youth group and the home), pastoral work in caring for the sick and aged, visiting the housebound and lonely, helping other sisters in their family duties, caring in a maternal sense for children in the ecclesia as needed (perhaps this is a possible meaning of the expression “saved in childbearing” in 1Ti 2:15, giving a wider meaning than strictly childbirth) — all of these responsibilities are specifically listed in Scripture as the work of the sisters. To this is added the help they give in preaching activities outside the formal meetings, teaching unbelievers and helping brethren in the preaching activities (Tit 2:3-5; Rom 16; Phi 4:3; Acts 1:14; 18:24-26; Heb 6:10).

Sisters: as heirs of salvation

The fact that sisters are required to fulfil a role and responsibility within the ecclesia and family life which is different from that of brethren in no way diminishes their status and standing before God. Sisters are “heirs together of the grace of life” and “all one in Christ Jesus” with the brethren. Our attitude to one another, brethren to sisters and sisters to brothers, must be that of esteeming others greater than ourselves. Sisters through the power of prayer and the wearing of head coverings represent the Bride of Christ (male and female), and work for the salvation of those whom God has called (Gen 18:12; 1Pe 3:1-7; Gal 3:26-29; 1Ti 5:10; Phi 2:3; 1Co 11:1-16).

“Both [men and women] are to ensure that such influence as they can bring to bear on their surroundings is a Divine influence and, in the spirit of Christ, seek to make the Lord’s will paramount. The woman, however, though encouraged by Scripture to use initiative, is to work out her dominion within the overall framework of male leadership. It is the man who has the ultimate responsibility for controlling the direction of events which are to be, to the best of his understanding, in accordance with God’s ways. In turn, he is to seek and to value the woman’s counsel, remembering always that the phrase ‘help meet’ means a God-given fellow-worker in the task of understanding and implementing the Divine will” (Michael Lewis, Man and Woman, The Testimony, 1992, p 54).