The Edward Turney and Robert Roberts Dispute, Reviewed with Historical Perspective.

Introduction – Common Christadelphian Beliefs concerning the Atonement………1 Chapter 1. – What Edward Turney Came to Believe in 1873………………………………..5Chapter 2. – The Evolution of Christadelphian Views on the Atonement……………..13 2. [A]. Doctrinal Oscillation in the Views of the Christadelphian Pioneers…………13 2. [B]. Later Recognition by John Carter, of some Flaws in the Thought of Robert Roberts………………………………………………………………………………17 2. [C]. Was it Robert Roberts who Initiated the First Introduction of ‘Clean Flesh’ Ideas Into the Christadelphian Community, in 1869……………………22 Final Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………………..30

Introduction.

To begin, it may be appropriate to give a brief account of the common beliefs held by many current Christadelphians, which are essentially based upon the views of Robert Roberts - especially those encoded in ‘The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’. This may give a clearer picture of what exactly Edward Turney disagreed with, in the summer of 1873.

Christadelphians believe that when Adam transgressed in Eden, his physical human nature became mortal, and physiologically changed into a sin-prone condition, whichis described as being ‘sin in the flesh’ (meaning ‘a sin-proneness which now resides in the physical flesh’). This‘sin in the flesh’ condition is also called ‘sinful flesh’ – a term which is found in the Authorized Bible [A.V.] at Romans 8:3, and is the A.V. rendering of the Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’. This ‘sinful flesh’ condition represents ‘fallen human nature’, which is now

mortal and sin-prone, because of the transgression of Adam. A further belief of the Christadelphians is that ‘the devil’ is allegedly a personification of ‘sin’ (sin-proneness) which resides in the physical flesh. Consequently, Christadelphians believe that ‘fallen human nature’ = ‘sinful flesh’ = ‘sin in the flesh’ = ‘the devil’.

Robert Roberts believed that because Jesus inherited fallen human nature, then Jesus allegedly, could be said to have had ‘sin’ within His flesh. BecauseJesus allegedly had ‘sin’ in His flesh, then it supposedly had to be atoned for through His own sacrificial death, which destroyed the ‘sin’ that was allegedly within Him. Consequently, for Christadelphians,Jesus had to die to atone for His own alleged ‘sin’ first, before He could be said to have died for the sins of others. Furthermore, Robert Roberts believed that Romans 5:19 applied to Jesus, and that therefore Jesus was ‘a sinner by constitution’. In his article “The Sacrifice of Christ – Questions Answered According to theTruth” , which was published in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine Vol. 10 (1873), p. 322, Robert Roberts attemptedto answer the following question :

‘If Jesus was neither a sinner by constitution nor an actual transgressor, in other words if free from sin, wasHe therefore not immaculate ?’

However, Robert Roberts could not agree with the proposal that Jesus was not ‘a sinner by constitution’, and he stated

“..He [Jesus] partook of the flesh of sin (English Version [Romans 8:3] – sinful flesh), and if this is whatis meant by ‘a sinner by constitution,’ then He was a sinner by constitution.”

Because it was alleged that Jesus was a sinner by constitution, and because He allegedly, had ‘sin’ within His flesh, then Robert Roberts believed that Jesus had to

die as an atoning sacrifice for His own ‘sin’ first, andthen only afterwards, for the sins of others.

To the question “In offering Himself did Christ offerfor His own sin ?”, Robert Roberts replied :

“..Jesus had no personal offences to offer for. Nevertheless, as an antitype of the high priest who ‘offered for his own sins, and then for the people’s’ [Hebrews 7:27] (1), there must have been a sense in whichHe did so, even as Paul says, ‘this He did once, when He offered up Himself.’” (Robert Roberts, ‘The Sacrifice of Christ – Questions Answered according to the Truth..’; Answer to Question 24, published in ‘The Christadelphian’magazine; [1873], Vol. 10, p.321.)

The well-known Christadelphian Frank Jannaway put the same point this way :

“But it is equally true that, being ‘made sin’ (2 Cor.5:21), He Himself [Jesus] required a sin-offering; inother words, He sacrificed Himself, for Himself, that He might save us.” (Frank Jannaway, in ‘Christadelphian Answers’, p. 24.)

Robert Roberts also seemed to believe that the use of theword ‘obtained’ in the Greek middle voice, found in Hebrews 9:12, proved that Jesus obtained redemption for Himself, personally. However, in actuality, Robert Roberts was only assuming that the word ‘obtained’ was inthe indirect middle voice’. This is where the agent of anaction is doing something for Himself, or in His own interests. The whole context of the Epistle to the Hebrews however, emphasizes that redemption and salvationare not to be found in anything to do with the old covenant – but only in Jesus Christ alone. This prevailing context of the whole Epistle to the Hebrews would strongly indicate that the word ‘obtained’ found at Hebrews 9:12, is not in the indirect middle voice (as Robert Roberts assumed), but instead, in the intensive

middle voice. The use of the intensive middle voice is common, and the meaning would be to put an emphasis on Jesus Christ Himself, as the one and only means for obtaining ‘redemption’. The use of the intensive middle voice at Hebrews 9:12 would then support the English translation of : ‘He [Jesus], and He alone, obtained an eternal redemption’. The meaning of Hebrews 9:12 therefore, is probably not that ‘He [Jesus] obtained redemption for Himself’, but ‘He [Jesus], and He alone obtained an eternal redemption – and not any Jewish priest, nor anything associated with the old covenant’. It is also important to note that Jesus initiated the new covenant - and the new covenant deals only with moral transgressions (cf. Jer. 31:34; Heb. 9:15; Rom. 4:25). Consequently, it is not surprising that Hebrews 6:19-20 clearly states that Jesus entered the heavenly sanctuary, behind the veil on our behalf [not on His own behalf]. A further point to note is that the Gospel proclamation was concerned with the atonement for moral transgressions only, not for the atonement of ‘sinful flesh’ (See for example Matt. 1:21, Mark 2:5, Acts 2:38 and 1 Cor. 15:3).

Robert Roberts also believed that when Jesus allowed Himself to be arrested by His enemies and crucified, Jesus was thereby endeavouring to endorse God’s just decision, that all fallen human nature deserves death. Involuntarily submitting to crucifixion therefore, Christadelphians believe that Jesus was upholding the justice (righteousness) of God. Furthermore, Christadelphians declare that by submitting Himself to becrucified, Jesus, allegedly, endeavoured to destroy His ‘sin in the flesh’, which equalled His ‘sinful flesh’, which allegedly equalled ‘the devil’ (allegedly, ‘sin in the flesh’ = ‘sinful flesh’ = ‘the devil’). However, through the Virgin birth, Jesus received superior moral power from God (which we do not possess), which enabled Jesus to uniquely lead a sinless life. As Robert Roberts expressed it :

“Yet He [Jesus] was tempted because He possessed the impulses common to our nature. He possessed, however, the

counter-balancing endowment of knowledge and superior power which enabled Him to do what no man ever has done, that is to pass through this state of existence without sin.” (Robert Roberts, ‘The Ambassador’ magazine, March 1869, page 86).

This same belief is reiterated in clause 9 of the Christadelphian ‘Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’, drawn up by Robert Roberts. The relevant section reads :

“..this mission that necessitated the miraculous begettal of Christ of a human mother …[enabled] Him [Jesus] to bear our condemnation [i.e. our mortal and sinprone condition], and, at the same time, to be a sinless bearer thereof..”

Because Jesus received superior power from God, which enabled Him to lead a sinless life, Robert Roberts apparently believed that the full credit for Christ’s sinless life, should go entirely to God. Robert Roberts stated in his work ‘The Slain Lamb’ [Edition page references vary] : “..the Father, by the Spirit, taught Him [Jesus] and led Him from the beginning. ‘I [Jesus] always do those thingsthat please Him [God]. I do nothing of Myself. I do thosethings that I have learned from Him’. These are His [Jesus’] own words. God gave not the Spirit to Him [Jesus] by measure [John 3:34], therefore, the praise [for Jesus’ sinless life] is entirely of the Father.”

Christadelphians also believe that although the righteousness of God required that Jesus voluntarily submit His fallen human nature to death, that same righteousness of God required that Jesus be resurrected -because Jesus had led a morally sinless life, notwithstanding that all the praise for Jesus’ morally sinless state, was due entirely to God. Jesus was therefore resurrected – initially in his former mortal, fallen human nature condition. It was only some time afterwards, according to Christadelphians, that Jesus in His resurrected mortal, fallen human nature form ascended

to God, in order to be immortalized and glorified. This belief of Robert Roberts was also incorporated in his ‘Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’ – under the category of ‘Doctrines to be Rejected, No. 17. This states that the doctrine that the dead rise in an immortal state, is to be rejected.

However, there may be a number of difficulties associated with some aspects of Christadelphian thought - and some of these prompted Edward Turney to seek to attempt an alternative explanation of the Atonement. Somesuch difficulties include the following :

1. If Jesus possessed superior moral power compared to ourselves, which enabled Him to lead a sinless life,then :

(a). Did not Jesus then a possess a human nature which was different to our own ? ;

And, (b). How could Jesus (if He possessed a superior moral power to resist temptation and thus lead a sinless life) be said to have been tempted in exactly the same way as we are ? (cf. Hebrews 4:15. A.V.)

2. If Jesus died on the cross to destroy ‘the devil’ (which is allegedly, ‘fallen, mortal human nature’) then why would God ever resurrect Jesus in order for Him to resume His former mortal, fallen human nature condition ? If ‘the devil’ is ‘sinful flesh’[fallen human nature], and Jesus destroyed ‘the devil’ by His death, then how could Jesus ever be resurrected in a mortal ‘sinful flesh’ condition ?

3. If the devil is fallen, mortal human nature [sinful flesh], then how could James in his epistle (4:7), possibly have said ‘Resist the devil, and he will flee from you’ ? If the devil is fallen, mortal human nature [sinful flesh], then wherever we go, the devil would necessarily always go with us.

4. Could the righteousness of God, which supposedly demanded the death of Jesus, be the very same righteousness of God, that had to resurrect Jesus back to life again, in a mortal, fallen human naturecondition ? Furthermore, can it really be meaningfully said that the evil men who were responsible for Christ’s death, were actually instruments for the demonstration of God’s righteousness ?

5. If Jesus had to die in order to endorse ‘the righteousness of God’, which demanded that all ‘sinful flesh’ must suffer death, then what happens to the ‘righteousness of God’ in the case of disciples of Christ, mentioned in 1 Cor. 15: 51-52, who will not have to experience physical death ?

Chapter One - What Edward Turney Came to Believe in theSummer of 1873.

“History will be kind to me”, said the politician and historian Winston Churchill, before subtlyadding :

“ ..because I intend to write it ! ”

This statement conforms to a widely held belief that history often consists of an account of events, written by the victors. This rule also seems apt when it comes to many published accounts of the theological views that the Christadelphian Edward Turney is alleged to have adopted in 1873. It may be fair to say that vast majorityof Christadelphians have probably never read any of the works of Edward Turney for themselves, and so they rely upon second hand reports which can often, unfortunately, be misleading and factually inaccurate. For example, the common, but erroneous view held by many Christadelphians,is that Edward Turney denied that Jesus shared our sin-prone human nature, or that Turney denied that Jesus shared our temptations to commit sin. These accusations however, are totally false, and constitute a serious

misrepresentation of Edward Turney’s views – as a first hand acquaintance with Turney’s works would demonstrate.

Ironically, the Christadelphian John James Andrew, whowas Robert Roberts’ main ally and ‘right-hand man’ in the1870’s, during the dispute with Edward Turney, was laterto re-echo Turney’s complaint concerning a misrepresentation of views. John James Andrew, in the 1890’s, further developed his own views on the Atonement,but complained that they were being seriously misrepresented by Robert Roberts. In a letter to Robert Roberts’ successor as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ (C.C. Walker), John James Andrew regrettably noted :

“ .. unfortunately, when the ball of misrepresentation is once set rolling, to arrest its progress is a very difficult matter.” [John James Andrew,‘The Sanctuary Keeper’ March, 1900, p 86].

In the summer of 1873 Edward Turney adopted the Atonement views held by the Christadelphian David Handley. Both David Handley and Edward Turney believed that Jesus possessed a human nature which was physically,identical to our own, but that the origin of the life of Jesus, derived from God.

A summary of the views of David Handley and Edward Turney - derived from Edward Turney’s works such as ‘The Sacrifice of Christ’, ‘The Two Sons of God’, ‘Thirty-Two Questions and Answers’, and Edward Turney’s magazine ‘TheChristadelphian Lamp’ - include the following elaboratedpoints.

1. The direct Father of Jesus was not Adam, but God Himself. The life-force that brought Jesus into veryexistence was not the life force derived from Adam’sspermatozoa (seed) – but a life-force that came directly from the power of God’s Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). The virgin birth of Christ thus made Him a unique holy offspring (Luke 1:35). The Greek word ‘ek’ means ‘from out of’; and John 8:42 states that Jesus came ‘from out of’ (Greek : ek) God. The

Revised English Bible and the New English Bible consequently translate John 8:42, as Jesus saying :

“God is the source of My being”.

2. Although the life of Jesus came directly from God, the physical body of Jesus was inherited from His mother Mary (cf. Hebrews 10:5). This explains why the fore-shadowed Messiah was described as being ‘the seed’ [ovum] of Eve (Genesis 3:15), but the Messiah’s actual life was not to be derived from ‘the seed’ [spermatozoa] of Adam. Jesus therefore inherited, from His mother a corruptible human body,which was just prone to sin, as our own bodies are. As regards His physical human nature, Jesus could bedescribed as being a ‘son of Man’, and a descendant of King David - but this was only ‘according to theflesh’ (cf. Romans 1:3 – where the Greek phrase ‘kata sarka’ means ‘according to the flesh’). In Mark 12:35-37, Jesus inquires how the Messiah could be the son of David, if David referred to the Messiah as ‘Lord’ ? Mark 12:35-37 may also thus be another indication that although the Messiah was to be a descendant a of David, according to the flesh, the life of the Messiah was derived directly from God. Furthermore, the term ‘son of man’ is a Hebraism, which means either a ‘human being’, or is a term which acts as a means of self-reference, and thus essentially means “I” [as in “I, myself”]. Jesus was certainly a human being, but the actual life, of Jesus came miraculously and directly from God – and was not derived from that life resident inAdam’s spermatozoa. This is why Jesus could genuinely say ‘God [not Adam] is the source of My being’ (John 8:42; Revised English Bible). Whereas the life of Jesus was supernaturally ‘from above’ [i.e. from a Heavenly origin, that is ‘from God], our life is ‘from below’, having its origin in an earthly source, via the spermatic life of Adam.

Robert Roberts himself came linguistically close to Edward Turney’s view here, whenhe stated :

“..Jesus, though developed from a divine germ, was framed out of His mother’s substance, and, consequently, was both Son of man and son of God.” (Robert Roberts, ‘The Sacrifice of Christ – Questions Answered According to the Truth’, published in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine (1873), Vol. 10, p.322; Answer to Question 18)

3. Because the life of Jesus was directly derived from God (and not derived from the life of Adamic spermatozoa), Jesus is described in Scripture as being the ‘second Man’ (1 Cor. 15:47) and the ‘last Adam’ (1 Cor. 15:45); While the original Adam is described as being ‘a type’ of Jesus (Romans 5:14). This presumably means that like the original Adam, Jesus did not necessarily have to commit sin. Jesus was the son of God, but He is never specifically described in the Greek New Testament as being ‘huis tou Adam’, meaning the ‘son of Adam’. Joseph (who was a son of Adam - cf. Luke 3:23-38) was only ‘supposed to be the father of Jesus’, because in reality, Jesus was the Son of God, and merely the adopted son of Joseph.

4. Adam was originally created with free-will, and a tendency to commit sin - but this tendency to commitsin could be controlled by the exercise of Adam’s God-given capability of self-restraint.

Edward Turney wrote : “The will of the flesh unrestrained is at variance with the will of God. When checked and guided by the Divine mind, man reflects hismaker.” (p. 21, ‘The Two Sons of God’)

Turney believed that It was upon this basis that Adam could be properly morally tested by God, in Eden.

Edward Turney wrote : “It had been quite as easy forGod to constitute man perfect, in the sense of creatinghim without those propensities and desires which led him to think and act contrary to God’s will; but it

pleased the Almighty so to frame man, that he might have some share in the work and honour of his own exaltation. This exaltation is primarily the work of God, and without the primary no secondary work of man is achieved …the glory of man is seen in his obedience to God.’ (p. 21, ‘The Two Sons of God’)

5. Adam was also born with a corruptible human nature – which was capable of experiencing death, if Adam should ever commit sin. Adam unfortunately did commit sin, because he did not use his divinely given ability for self-restraint. Adam’s natural life was then sentenced, and condemned to mortality,and his life was to be lost because of sin. Adam’s already ‘corruptible’ human nature (which was already capable of death, but not necessarily destined to die) then became ‘mortal’ (i.e. necessarily destined to die, because of a breach of Divine Law). All those who are born of two human parents, derive their actual life [life force] from the life which was resident within Adam’s spermatozoa. Because their life is a further extension of that spermatic life of Adam, which was condemned to mortality – they consequently, are alsoborn with mortal lives.

6. Adam’s direct descendants (that is, all those who

are born through two human parents), like Adam, became morally flawed – to the extent that they at least commit unwitting transgressions. They were consequently ‘constituted sinners’ – that is they were ‘made sinners’ (Romans 5: 19), to the extent that were all mortal, and morally imperfect. Only Jesus was completely morally perfect, because He never committed any sins – neither witting, nor unwitting sins.

Edward Turney made a distinction between ‘transgression’ and ‘disobedience’. He wrote :

‘A mistake is sometimes made in supposing all sins to be alike. Sins of ignorance [transgressions]

are not acts of disobedience; they do not occur from a criminal fault on man’s part. A Jew for example, might walk over a grave and thereby become legally defiled, but it would be wrong to esteem that a criminal act…..But if, when such transgression comes to his knowledge, he refuses to offer the appointed sacrifice,he is then guilty of a sin of disobedience.” (pp. 21, 22, ‘The Two Sons of God’)

Edward Turney effectively stated that apart from Jesus, all of humanity, since Adam’s transgression, aremorally imperfect, because, at best, they at least commit sins of ignorance – that is ‘sins’, which are committed, without the conscious awareness of the sinner. When these sins are later realized, the sinner had to repent, and/or make the appropriate sacrifice for sins of ignorance (cf. Leviticus 5). Turney wrote :

“Examples of obedience abound in the Scriptures for our encouragement …The characters who, in Old and New Testament history, have walked righteously before God, not having wilfully and deliberately transgressed His laws, will no doubt shine with the brilliancy of planetary stars in the galaxy of the kingdom of the heavens [Dan. 12:10]…Among all the stars the Star of Bethlehem shines the brightest. Jesus rises highest in the scale of Divine law. His obedience was perfect. Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Moses, Job, Daniel, and John make up a cluster of jewels of rich lustre, but they all pale before ‘The Mountain of Light’, the GrandKohinoor of the Almighty’s signet ”. (Edward Turney, ‘The Two Sons of God’, p. 22)

Edward Turney also posed the following question :

‘Had Christ owed His paternity to Adam through Joseph, what would have been the consequence ?’

Turney answered his own question by stating :

“The consequence would have been that Christ would have been made a ‘sinner;’ that is, He would

have been a sinner by constitution.” (Edward Turney,‘Thirty-Two Questions and Answers’, Question 21)

Edward Turney also posed the question :

“If Christ had been a son of Adam [and not Son of God], what would have been His character ?”

Turney answered his own question by stating :

“That of a constituted sinner, like all the rest.” [who at best, commit sins of ignorance]” (Edward Turney, ‘Thirty-Two Questions andAnswers’, Question 25).

7. Because Jesus did not derive His life from the life resident within Adam’s spermatozoa, His life did notcome under the penalty of ‘condemnation’ (to mortality) that was imposed upon the life of Adam, and all those who shared Adam’s life, by being born of two human parents. Jesus therefore was not born as ‘a constituted sinner’ – that is, as someone who is necessarily destined to become a moral sinner. Jesus always remained obedient to God, and never became a moral sinner. Only Christ’s enemies ever accused Him of being a sinner (John 9:24). It was because Edward Turney renounced his previously held belief that Jesus was born as a constitutional sinner, who was necessarily under condemnation to die, that Christadelphian opponents of Turney labelled his teaching as ‘Renunciationism’. The Turney-Roberts dispute in Christadelphian history, is therefore referred to as ‘The Renunciationist’ debate.

8. Jesus came into the world to save sinners (1 Timothy1:15). As Jesus was not in any way a sinner, His sacrificial death was not needed for His own salvation, from any sin of His own. Jesus came to take away ‘the sin of the world’ (John 1:29), but Jesus was ‘not of this world’ (John 8:23). Jesus

therefore, according to Turney, died for the sins ofothers – but not for any sin of His own.

9. Because the life of Jesus was not derived from Adam’s

spermatic life, Jesus possessed a life which was not born into that state of condemnation to mortality, thathad fallen upon the life of Adam, and all his direct descendants (i.e. all those born of two human parents).The human nature of Jesus was ‘corruptible’ – that is, it was capable of experiencing death, but it was not necessarily destined for death. Just like the first Adam (who was also a direct creation of God) Jesus was able to be put on probation for eternal life. In this respect, Jesus was a ‘second Adam’, possessing a corruptible and sin-prone human body, but not necessarily destined to commit sin, nor necessarily destined to die. At some point towards the end of His natural life, Jesus proved Himself successful in earning the right to eternal life, and consequently He could, if He had so requested it, have been rescued by God from His human enemies (see Matt. 26:53). At that point, He could have entered Heaven alone, and been immortalized and glorified.

9. However, in order to redeem Adam, and those who shared in Adam’s life, Jesus volunteered to lay down His natural life as a true sacrifice, for the sake of others. Jesus described His death as being ‘a ransom’ (Mark 10:45; Matt. 20:28), and the Apostle Paul reiterated this same point in 1 Tim. 2:6. Jesus in John 10:17, and 18 stated that as the‘Good Shepherd’, He had the ‘exousian’, which is Greek for the ‘capacity, freedom, privilege, strength, power, right, and authority. Jesus therefore had the capacity, the right and the meansto lay down His life, as a ransom for the sake of others (‘the sheep’), and to take up His (earned eternal life) life again. Adam lost his life, as a penalty owed to the Divine law. Jesus however was in a position to voluntarily lay down His un-condemned life (which was not lost because of sin)

as a ransom payment to the Divine law, in order to satisfy Divine justice, and allow God the legal right to forgive repentant sinners. With the penalty of Adam’s sin paid for, God was able to righteously forgive repentant sinners (Romans 3:25,26).

10. God had foreseen that His directly begotten Son (John 1:18) would pay the necessary ransom price needed to redeem Adam (and those in his loins), and so He instituted a system of sacrifices that typically pointed forward to the perfect sacrifice of Jesus. The first such sacrifice is intimated as having occurred inEden (Genesis 3:21). The Divinely foreseen ransom payment by Christ, legally allowed Adam’s spermatic life to be perpetuated in the lives of Adam’s offspring, who are born of two human parents. The continued life of the human race was dependant on the Divinely foreseen sacrifice of Christ. In this way, Godwas literally the Saviour of all men (as regards the continuation of Adamic natural life), but especially ofbelievers (who are pressing on unto eternal life, in Christ).

11. Those who believe the Gospel can avail themselves ofthe benefit of Christ’s ransom sacrifice. Their sins are forgiven, and they are set upon a personal path of probation for eternal life, now that the debt or fine incurred by Adam’s sin has been paid by Christ.

12. Although Jesus gave His un-condemned natural life (lived within a corruptible, sin-prone human body) as aransom for Adam’s sin, Jesus nevertheless had also earned the right during His lifetime, to have eternal life. Through an extension of Divine justice, God raised the sinless Jesus to life, sometime after His crucifixion (Acts 2:23, 24).

13. The phrase ‘sinful flesh’ in the King James Version at Romans 8:3, is a mistranslation of the Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’ – which literally reads ‘flesh of sin’ or ‘Sin’s flesh’. This signifies that ‘sin’ is being personified as an ‘Owner’ and a ‘Slave-master’ ofsinners – with the physical flesh of sinners being thus

said to metaphorically owned and governed by personified ‘Sin’. When Adam sinned, his physical fleshwas not then changed into an evil substance called ‘sinful flesh’. Adam also did not begin to become sin-prone after his transgression, because He was originally created with a proneness to sin, in order that he could be morally tested in Eden. Adam’s sin-proneness however, could have conquered through his Godgiven capability of self-restraint.

14. As the man Jesus was not a moral sinner, He did not have ‘Sin’s flesh’ – but only ‘the likeness of Sin’s flesh’ (Romans 8:3). The physical nature of Jesus was exactly the same as our own, with respect to its ‘corruptibility’ and its ‘proneness to sin’, but Jesus proved Himself morally sinless – and hence He only had the ‘likeness of Sin’s flesh’. He shared our same physical flesh, but Jesus, by His obedience, had God, and not Sin, as His Master. Jesus was ‘God manifested in the flesh’ (1 Tim. 3:16; A.V.).

15. Romans 7:14-25 was a generalized spiritual description of a Jew who is outside of Christ. Romans 7:14-25 cannot be used by Christ’s disciples as ‘a license to commit sin’, because this passage is not a description of normative Christian experience.

Consequently, when the views of Edward Turney and David Handley are taken in the round, it can be seen that Robert Roberts could be accused of a certain amount of misrepresentation when, in his publication ‘The Slain Lamb’ (page 3), he alleged that Edward Turney and his supporters believed :

“that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh ”.

Later on however, within that very same publication (‘The Slain Lamb’, page 6) Robert Roberts appeared to contradict himself, when he claimed that Edward Turney’s beliefs, with respect to Jesus :

“makes Him [Jesus] a mere man.”

How Edward Turney could allegedly deny that Jesus sharedour own human flesh, and yet at the very same time, allegedly believe that Jesus was only ‘a mere man’, indicates that Robert Roberts either did not fully understand Edward Turney’s views, or, he was indulging ina measure of misrepresentation. Indeed, the Christadelphian and professional historian Andrew Wilson (Central Fellowship), in his published degree thesis (‘The History of the Christadelphians : The Emergence of a Denomination : 1864-1885’; Shalom Publications, 1997), claims that the reason why many of Edward Turney’s viewshave kept on recurring within the Christadelphian Fellowships, is because Robert Roberts never adequately dealt with the full the implications of Turney’s arguments. Instead, Andrew Wilson claimed that Robert Roberts dealt with Edward Turney views via a method of ‘rapid political manoeuvring’.

Another example of how Edward Turney’s views have continued to be misrepresented up until recent times, comes from the work of the Christadelphian W.J. Wright (Dawn Fellowship), who alleged in his publication “Light and Shade of the Truth’s History”, that people like Edward Turney believed that :

“ Jesus did not come in our nature, that is in sin’s flesh, but a better nature than ours” (ibid., p. 6).

This notion that Jesus possessed a human nature that lacked the same internal physical desires, and the same proneness to sin which we too experience, became labelled by Christadelphians in the early twentieth century as the ‘clean flesh’ heresy.

The Central Christadelphian historian Reg Carr also commits misrepresentation, when he falsely accused David Handley (who shared Edward Turney’s beliefs) of believingthat Jesus had an immaculate nature (cf. ‘The Testimony’ magazine, Vol. 54, No. 637, Jan. 1984, p. 3). Edward Turney however, from the very beginning was at pains to refute this false allegation. In his publication “Thirty-Two Questions and Answers Concerning Jesus Christ’,

penned on June 5th,1873. Edward Turney (in his answer to Question 32), stated with reference to Jesus :

“ An immaculate being could not be tempted, but Christwas ‘tempted in all points, like as we are. ”

According to Edward Turney therefore, Jesus shared a corruptible human nature , which possessed exactly the same propensities to sin, which we too experience. Jesus was tempted to sin in exactly the same way as we are. Jesus however, controlled all His impulses to sin, by exercising His self-restraint in obedience to the will ofGod.

Christadelphians believe that when Adam sinned, his human nature developed a proneness to commit sin, and became transformed into an evil, quasi-physical substancecalled ‘sinful flesh’ . The phrase ‘sinful flesh’ occursonly once in the entire A.V. Bible, at Romans 8:3. This term ‘sinful flesh’ is derived from the underlying Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’ - which literally means ‘flesh of sin’ or ‘flesh belonging to sin’, and hence ‘sin’s flesh’. Christadelphians believe that this evil ‘sinful flesh’ ultimately forces all of Christ’s disciples to be continuing moral sinners. Edward Turney however (and later, in 1956, the Christadelphian John Carter) , believed that the rendition ‘sinful flesh’ was actually amistranslation of the Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’, which should actually be translated as ‘Sin’s flesh’ – with ‘Sin’ being personified, and depicted a controlling Slave Master, and Owner, of the physical flesh of moral sinners (cf. John 8:34 : ‘Everyone who sins is a slave ofSin’). However, because Jesus was not a moral sinner, both Edward Turney, and later John Carter, believed that the physical flesh of Jesus - although physically identical to ours - was not used as a vehicle, or as a ‘slave’ to ‘Sin’ – and that therefore, Jesus’ physical flesh (although physically the same as ours) could not bemetaphorically described as being ‘Sin’s flesh’ (i.e. human physical flesh, under the moral control and masteryof personified ‘Sin’ - as in a slave-Master

relationship). Jesus fully shared our human physical nature, with its propensity to commit sin (if not controlled by self-restraint), but Jesus uniquely resisted all human temptations. The proper description of Jesus’ physical body therefore, according to Edward Turney was that it was ‘in the likeness of Sin’s flesh’ (Romans 8:3) – that is, Jesus had the same physical body as our own, and experienced the same temptations to commit sin, as we do, but Jesus resisted all temptations and His physical body was never used as a slave of Sin, nor ethically controlled by Sin.

Chapter Two – The Evolution of the Traditional Christadelphian View on the Atonement.

The traditional Christadelphian accounts ofthe Edward Turney v. Robert Roberts dispute, usually portray Robert Roberts, in defence of ‘the Truth’, as easily and straightforwardly dismantling Edward Turney’s views. However, a careful perusal of the actual historical facts, presents a different, and a much more complicated train of events.

The actual historical facts reveal that :

A. There was a degree of considerable oscillation and inconsistency, in the views of both of Dr John. Thomas and of Robert Roberts, concerning Atonementissues, in the years leading up to 1873.

B. It was actually Robert Roberts himself, who was first responsible for introducing into the Christadelphian community, the notion that Christ had ‘clean flesh’. This introduction of ‘clean flesh’ ideas into Christadelphian community by Robert Roberts, occurred four years before Edward Turney and David Handley later started to develop these very same Robertsian ideas.

C. It has been well known for over fifty years amongst later Editors of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine,

that some of the important particular arguments utilized by Robert Roberts, in order to criticize Edward Turney, are factually flawed.

And conversely, it has also been well known for over fifty years - even amongst subsequent Editors of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine - that some of the important arguments put forward by Edward Turney(and which at the time, were strongly resisted by Robert Roberts) were actually correct.

These above points will be discussed in turn :

[A]. The Oscillation and Inconsistency in the Views of the Christadelphian Pioneers.

A brief historical overview.

Dr. Thomas stated (speaking through the literarycharacter of ‘Boanerges’) stated on page nine, of his work : “Clerical Theology Unscriptural” [which was originally entitled ‘The Wise Taken in by their own Craftiness’, and published in 1850] :

“Because he [Adam] transgressed the Eden Law, Adam is said to have sinned. Evil was then evolvedin his flesh, as the punishment of his sin ; and because the evil was the punishment of the sin, it is also styled ‘sin’. ‘Flesh and Blood’ is naturally full of this evil. It is therefore called ‘sinful flesh’, or flesh full of sin. Hence, an apostle saith, ‘in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing’ (Rom. 7:18). The absence of goodness in our physical nature is the reason of flesh and blood being termed ‘sin’, that would from henceforth, lead to his mortality, and proneness to transgression.”

Earlier, in 1849, Doctor Thomas had stated :

“When their [Adam and Eve’s] sin was perfected, the propensities or lusts, having been inflamed, became ‘a law in their members; and because it was implanted in their flesh by transgression, it is styled ‘the law of

sin ..and death.’ (‘Elpis Israel’, page 90, 14th Edition, Revised);

And :

“Sin represents … that physical principle of the animal nature ...it is called sin because the developmentor fixation of this evil in the flesh was the result of transgression. Insomuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’ or ‘flesh full of sin’; so that ‘sin’ in the sacred style, came to stand for the substance called man…the nature of the lower animals is as full of this physical evil principal as the nature of man; though it cannot be styled ‘sin’ with the same expressiveness, because it does not possess them as a result of their owntransgression; the name however, does not alter the nature of the thing.” (Dr. John Thomas; ibid. p.126-7)

It is not surprising therefore, that many Christadelphians in the past, seem to have had a tendencyto conceive of ‘sin’ as being some kind of quasi-physicalsubstance, that has become a constituent of all human nature, since the Fall of Adam. Dr. Thomas’ words in ‘Elpis Israel’, were always in danger of being taken too literally, and strange notions of ‘physical sin’ developed, which John Carter effectively disposed of, in his writings contained in the ‘Unity in Australia’ document. The surgeon, and Turney sympathiser, Dr. S.G. Hayes, tried very early on, to introduce an element of physiological and theological clarification, by stating :

‘The confounding of ‘sin’ with the impulses to sin, has introduced an element of confusion into this question, which should be carefully avoided.”

(From the Chairman’s remarks, by Dr. Hayes, when initially introducing Edward Turney’s Birmingham lecture:‘The Sacrifice of Christ’, which was delivered by Turney on August 28th, 1873).

By the year 1855 however, Doctor Thomas had begun to backtrack on some of the above ideas, and he began to put forward the notion that Adam was actually created as a dying creature, from the very first moment of his existence.

This is how Doctor Thomas expressed this new idea in his article “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall”, which was published in Doctor Thomas’ own magazine : “The Herald of the Kingdom Age to Come” (July edition, 1855) :

“Thus, fall [Autumn] and winter, seasons of decay anddeath, were institutions existing before the Fall …it is certain therefore, that the animal nature they [Adam andEve] possessed was essentially a mortal nature ..Adam andEve, and all the other animals …would have died and gone to corruption, if there had been no transgression, provided that there had been no further interference withthe physical system that Moses records [in the Genesis account of creation]… There was no new physical principleinfused into their [Adam and Eve’s] nature that was not there before they transgressed. The introduction of a miracle would have been in the instantaneous transformation of their mortal animal nature, into the immortal spiritual nature, on their eating of the fruit of the Tree of Lives …..If they had continued obedient, death though lurking within them, would not have been allowed to enter the world ... but they transgressed – their thinking became perverse or contrary to the letter of the Word of God, and their practice like it – they sinned; and the physical tendency of animal nature to dissolution became ‘the law of sin and death’ within thembecause its abolition was prevented on account of sin.”

To the question : “But in what sense was it [the whole original creation] very good?”, Dr. Thomas replied:

“In an animal and physical sense; for it was a natural and animal system, not a spiritual one” (ibid.).

One is also reminded here, as previously mentioned above, that Doctor Thomas, in ‘Elpis Israel’ (1849), had claimed that the lower animals had been originally created by God, with “flesh full of ‘sin’” [i.e. ‘sinful flesh’] – cf. ‘Elpis Israel’, p. 127, 14th Edition, Revised.

Later, in 1873, Edward Turney took up some of thesenew ideas, that Doctor Thomas had formulated in 1855. Like Doctor Thomas in 1855, Edward Turney also came to believe that when Adam sinned, “there was no new physicalprinciple infused into their [Adam and Eve’s] nature thatwas not there before they transgressed”. Consequently, Edward Turney came to believe that the effect of Adam’s transgression, was to make Adam’s original corruptible human nature (which was capable of death, but not necessarily destined for death), into ‘mortal’ human nature - which was necessarily destined for physical death, because ‘mortality’ for Turney was a consequence of a breach of divine law, and it eventually entailed a loss of access to the Tree of Life in Eden.

Edward Turney therefore, by 1873, came to believe that Adam’s physical flesh, after the Fall, did not undergo any miraculous transformation, which changed it into any evil physical substance. Nor, thought Turney, did Adam’s transgression make his physical human nature prone to commit sin, because it was prone to commit sin (if not controlled by Adam’s self-restraint) even before the Fall - otherwise, reasoned Turney, temptation with the possibility of transgression, could never have taken occurred in the first place.

As Jesus was morally sinless, Edward Turney did not believe that Jesus was in any way (physically, or morally) ‘evil’ or ‘offensive’ to God - and thus in need of any sin-offering for Himself. Indeed, the notion that human beings are literally composed of an evil, sinful substance, was the conviction of the Gnostics and Greek Platonist philosophers. The Apostle Paul describes our present physical bodies as being ‘mortal’, ‘weak’, ‘corruptible’, ‘inglorious’, (1 Cor.

15:42-54), and as ‘humble’ (cf. Phil. 3:20, where the Greek word ‘tapeinoseos’ means our lowly, or humble, ascompared to spiritual bodies) – but the Apostle Paul never describes human bodies as being intrinsically physically evil, as if they were composed of a quasi-physical evil substance (which was a Gnostic and PlatonicGreek idea). Consequently, all that Jesus needed (according to Turney), was not a ‘sin-offering’ to atone for any ‘sin’ of His own (as was believed by Robert Roberts, in 1873), but the mere transformation of his physical human body into a spiritual (supernatural) body (1 Cor. 15:44) - inorder to merely equip it for the conditions of a glorified, eternal state of existence.

Both Edward Turney, and Doctor Thomas (in 1855), believed that at some point in his probationary period, Adam (had he proved faithful) would have been immortalised by God, without him having to undergo the experience of physical death - that is, Adam was originally created in a corruptible condition which was capable of physical death, but not necessarily destined for physical death. Both Jesus and Adam, were direct ‘Sons of God’ - Jesus, by a special creative act of Divine begetting,and Adam, by direct Divine creation. Consequently, Adam is described as being ‘a type’ of Jesus (Rom. 5:14), and Jesus is described as being ‘the second Man’, who had a direct heavenly origin (1 Cor. 15:47). As it is biologically impossible for a man to simultaneously have two fathers, Edward Turney reasoned that Jesus was in an analogous position to Adam, in that He (like the original Adam) was on probation for eternal life, and wasnot necessarily destined to suffer physical death.

Mathew 26:53 may support Turney’s position, in that the possibility of Jesus being rescued from death, at the hands of His enemies, would suggest that at this specific moment in history, Jesus had succeeded in His own personal probationary quest for eternal life. Edward Turney also appealed to John 12:23, 24, where Jesus seems

to liken Himself to that ‘grain of seed’, that could (in that moment in time) have abided alone in eternity (via arapture to Heaven), had He not decided (for the sake of others) to voluntarily give up His life, as a ransom sacrifice for Adam, and his sinning progeny. Supporting evidence for this possibility, may occur in Hebrews 12:2,which both the New English, and the Revised English marginal translations render as :

“In place of the joy that was open to Him [Jesus], He [instead] endured the cross, ignoring its disgrace, and has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of God.”

The above phrase ‘In place of’ in Heb. 12:2, isa translation of the Greek word ‘anti’, which usually means ‘instead of’ or ‘in place of’. The meaning of Hebrews 12:2 therefore, could be that instead of the heavenly joy that could have been His, Jesus decided to voluntarily carry out His mission by having Himself subjected to death (as a ransom sacrifice, for the benefit of sinners), confident in the knowledge that God would raise Him from death, because of His [Christ’s] godly devotion. (Hebrews 5:7). If there was any element of self-interest in Christ’s impending death (that is, if Jesus was dying to secure His own salvation), then this would seem to nullify Jesus’ statements that His death was a true sacrificial act, made purely for the benefit of others (cf. John 10:11.). If Jesus had to die in order to gain His own personal salvation, then it does seem semantically difficult to conceive of His death as a genuine, altruistic sacrifice.

[B.] Was it Roberts Roberts who Initiated the Introduction of ‘Clean Flesh’ teachings into the Christadelphian Community, in 1869 ?

Doctor Thomas’ line of thought, evidenced in his 1855 article “Our Terrestrial System Before the Fall”, (see

above) eventually, by 1869, seems to have exerted some influence on Robert Roberts’ own thinking.

David Handley was a former prominent member of a thenwell -known Christian denomination called ‘The Peculiar People’. Handley and several others, left ‘The Peculiar People’ denomination, when they embraced the views of conditional immortality, and they set up their own separate Christian group in Maldon. According to John James Andrew’s account in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine (Vol.11 [1874], p. 44), he (John James Andrew, of the North London ecclesia) in 1869, had had discussions with David Handley, with a possible view to Handley being baptized into the Christadelphian community. The stumbling block however, was that David Handley did not believe that Jesus inherited the condemnation to mortality, that had fallen upon Adam and his direct posterity. This (according to Handley) was because Jesus had received His life directly from God, and not from Adam’s seed. Handley believed that it was the God-given life of Jesus (free from the condemnation that had fallenupon Adamic life) that Jesus volunteered to surrender, when He laid down His life for us (1 John 3:16, John 10:17, 18). Because Handley believed that Jesus was not personally under ‘the law of sin and death’, Handley believed that God could very justly resurrect Jesus afterHis crucifixion, because the morally sinless life of Christ had not (unlike Adamically derived life) been forfeited to Sin. These views of David Handley in 1869, were the very same views that he still held on to in 1873, and which were later to be adopted by Edward Turney, in 1873. John James Andrew wrote to Robert Roberts about David Handley’s position, and J.J. Andrew urged Robert Roberts to write an article in ‘The Ambassador’ magazine,in an attempt to counter in print, David Handley’s views.The result of Andrew’s request was an article by Robert Roberts entitled ‘The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sinand Death’ - which was published in ‘The Ambassador’ magazine for March, 1869. Amazingly, in the article, Robert Roberts expressed views that partially supported what was later to became known as ‘clean flesh’ teaching

– that is, (1) that there was no physical change to Adam’s constitution after the Fall, which had made Adam more prone to sin, than before the Fall; And (2) that ‘sin-in-the-flesh’ is not a physical physiological entity, but a mere figure of speech which rhetorically and metaphorically (not physically or physiologically) describes the condition of actual moral sinners - who are pictured as being mastered by the power of ‘Sin’ , with Sin being personified as an internal ruling ‘king’ (Romans 5:21; 7:17, 20). The relevant passage written by Robert Roberts, which was supportive of ‘clean flesh’ teaching, runs thus : “Our friend [David Handley] imagines there was a change in the nature of Adam, when he became disobedient.There is no evidence for this whatsoever, and the presumption and evidence are entirely the contrary way. There was a change in Adam’s relation to his Maker, but not in the nature of his organization. What are the facts? He was formed from the dust a “living soul”, or naturalbody. His mental constitution gave him a moral relation to God. He was given a law to observe : this law he disobeyed, and sentence was passed that he (the disobedient living soul) should return to mother earth. What was the difference between his position before disobedience and his position after ? Simply this; that in the one case he was a living soul or natural body, in probation for immortality; and in the other, he was a living soul or natural body under sentence of death. He was a living soul or natural body in both cases. The phrase ‘sin in the flesh’ is metonymical. It is not expressive of a literal element or principle pervading the physical organization. Literally, sin is disobedience, or the act of rebellion. The impulses that lead to this, reside in the flesh, and therefore come to be called by the name of the act to which they give birth. In determining First principles, we must be accurate in our conceptions. The impulses that lead to sin existed in Adam before disobedience, as much as they did afterwards, else disobedience would not have occurred. These impulses are, in their own place legitimate enough. We can judge this matter by

experience, because the human nature under discussion, isthe human nature we have upon ourselves and see in operation around us. There is no such thing as essential evil or sin. Evil and sin are relative terms. There is nopropensity but subserves a good purpose in its own place.” (Robert Roberts, ‘The Ambassador’ magazine, March, 1869 : ‘The Relation of Jesus to the Law of Sin and Death.’)

We can see therefore, from these comments of Robert Roberts in 1869, that it was not David Handley whofirst began to officially introduce ‘Clean flesh’ ideas into the Christadelphian community, but Robert Roberts himself. In 1869, Robert Roberts claimed that “there wasno change in the nature of Adam, when he became disobedient”, and that “there is no evidence for this [alleged change] whatsoever”. Furthermore, Robert Robertsclaimed that the impulses that led to sin, existed in Adam before disobedience, ‘as much as they did afterwards’, and that the phrase ‘sin in the flesh’ is purely metonymical, and “not expressive of a literal element or principle pervading the physical organization.”

Ironically, although Edward Turney in 1869, resisted these ‘clean flesh’ notions expressed by Roberts Roberts - four years later in 1873, Edward Turney began to accept them. But in another twist of irony, Robert Roberts by 1873, had abandoned his ‘clean flesh’ ideas of1869, and came to adopt the views that Edward Turney had held in 1869.

This ironic fact was recognized by the Christadelphian Birmingham ‘Renunciationist’ ecclesia (England), where one member noted :

“It is manifest from this that it is brother Roberts himself, who introduced the ‘wolf’ [clean flesh teaching]into the fold, and is the only one responsible for what he now [in 1873] denounces as ‘damnable heresy’” [A quote published in Edward Turney’s magazine ‘The Christadelphian Lamp’, Vol. 1, No. 4, 1874].

It is not surprising therefore, that David Handley still believed that Jesus had inherited a life that was free from the condemnation that had fallen upon the life of Adam, even when he (Handley) was baptised in Robert Roberts’ Birmingham ecclesia on March 20th, 1869. In a pre-baptismal discussion with Robert Roberts, Handley hadexpressed the view that it was better to say that Jesus did not forfeit His life by committing sin, rather than say that Jesus had earned eternal life by obedience. To this, Robert Roberts concurred – which presumably may have appeared to David Handley, to be some kind of endorsement of his view of that Jesus had derived His ‘un-condemned life’ directly from God, which was then notforfeited to Sin, as Adam’s life had been.

Some twenty-six months later, David Handley fully and systematically set out his personal views (which was heldby other Christadelphians in the Maldon ecclesia) concerning an un-condemned Jesus who had laid down His life as a literal ransom price, for Adam’s sin. These systematic views were expressed in a letter sent to Robert Roberts for his evaluation, concerning their suitability for publication in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine. After having had six months to carefully ponderDavid Handley’s letter, Robert Roberts amazingly decided to published it - without comment or any criticism - in‘The Christadelphian’ magazine for November, 1871 (page 345). David Handley’s letter was published under the title of ‘No man can Redeem His Brother’, and its contents followed on, from some of the thoughts expressedby Robert Roberts in 1869 – namely that the physical flesh of Adam was physiologically the same after the Fall, as before it; And that all the Fall did was to introduce a state of mortality into Adam’s nature. The fact that Robert Roberts dared to publish David Handley’sletter (and then even defend it later, against detractors) may well indicate two things :

Firstly, that Robert Roberts in November 1871, presumably at that time, had some genuine sympathy with the revolutionary doctrinal contents of David Handley’s

letter – even though they deviated from the views of Dr. John Thomas;

And secondly, that in publishing the letter, Robert Roberts may have been testing the reaction of the wider Christadelphian community, to these new doctrinal ideas. It is possible that if the community reaction had been generally more favourable to David Handley’s ransom theory of the Atonement, then Robert Roberts may well at that time, have been emboldened to openly championed it, at least as a legitimate alternative Biblical explanationof Christ’s atoning work. Although Robert Roberts was to later entirely blame David Handley for introduction of ‘clean flesh’ teachings into the Christadelphian community, Roberts always seemed to have some sympatheticregard for Handley. Upon hearing that David Handley had passed away in 1886, Robert Roberts penned a short article in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine (Vol. 23, 1886,p. 423) regarding Handley. After attributing various faults to him, Robert Roberts did end by saying :

“He [David Handley] did his best, doubtless according to his light. His race is run, and the Judge will do right, giving to every man according as his work appears in divine eyes, and forgiving much – without which none of us, could hope.”

Whatever the case may have been regarding Robert Robert’s beliefs and intentions in November 1871, the revolutionary views of David Handley, which were publicized by Robert Roberts in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine for November, 1871, were later to be adopted by Edward Turney in June 1873.

In reading David Handley’s 1871 letter printedbelow, please note that in current Christadelphian thought, the physical flesh of Adam and Eve that originally committed sin in Eden, was ‘clean flesh’. Onlyafter Adam and Eve’s transgressions, did their ‘clean flesh’ become physically changed into ‘unclean flesh’.

David Handley’s letter published by Robert Roberts (without any comment or criticism) in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine, November, 1871, reads thus : “Dear Brother Roberts. – I am surprised that any looking for redemption through Jesus, should ever supposeHim to be a mere man. I do not think that any maintain that they can be saved unless redeemed. I am aware that saying and writing too much often mystifies that which the writer or speaker wishes to make plain; yet I ventureto write a little on this subject, though some may think there has already been too much written. I will endeavourto express my mind in a few words. First what is the position of every son of Adam? ‘Bythe offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation;’ so that every son of Adam being under sentence of death, it was not possible for any to escape from it, unless redeemed. Now is Jesus the Redeemer? We say yes. What qualified Him [Jesus] for the great work [of Atonement] ? We shall see that to do this, He must beboth Son of God and Son of Man. First, He must pay the debt, in order to release the debtor . It was the mortal race that had fallen under the wrath of God, which ended in death. In order to meet the law He must be the seed ofthe woman for there could be no compromise. The Law could not be set aside. It had no power to release the dead, until a sacrifice had been offered in the flesh that sinned [NOTE : For Christadelphians, the physical flesh of Adam and Eve which originally committed sin in Eden, was ‘clean flesh’]. Here we see the need of Jesus being in the likeness of sinful flesh. But He must be Sonof God, in order for there to be virtue in His death to redeem; His life must be independent of the Adamic race.Therefore, though son of David’s daughter, and ‘made of the woman’, He was a New Creation – ‘the Lord from Heaven’, not dependant on Adam for His life, but [He] received it direct from the Father, as John hath it. – (5:26; 6:57.) Here I think we see the wisdom of God in our redemption. A body in our nature; [but] A life independent of our race ; The life of the flesh is givenfor the life of the world; here is what men of business call twenty shillings in the pound. But again I say,

there could be no virtue in giving up His life if He werea mere man, or if He had derived His life in any way fromthe seed of Adam, for all who derived their life from Adam, lost it; for in him all sinned. But Christ in our flesh could suffer the penalty, and then redeem His brethren, for He never forfeited His life by personal transgression; and His life being independent of the race, He could give it as a ransom. To me [i.e. David Handley] this appears clear, that while no man could giveGod a ransom for his brother, the Son of God, Who was bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh, could, having the price of redemption in His own power. You will see from these few lines, what I wish to convey to the brethren. If you think the matter worthy of insertion in ‘The Christadelphian’ [magazine], use it,if not, refuse it. My house all join in love to thee, and to thy house,and the household of faith. - Farewell.

D. Handley, Maldon ”

Robert Roberts, after having had six months to carefully ponder David Handley’s letter, decided to publish it, without comment or criticism. Indeed, Robert Roberts even later defended David Handley’s letter against some Christadelphian detractors, when he wrote :

“Bro. Handley’s paper ..was misunderstood, if supposed to mean there was a physical difference between Adam and Christ.. There may [NOTE : only ‘may’] be something open to criticism in the proposition that the life of Jesus was independent of His Adamic extraction …but bro. Handley’s utterance on the question [should not be considered] ..the voice of Antichrist.” (Robert RobertRoberts ; ‘The Christadelphian’; 1872; p.276.)

In 1873, Edward Turney began to adopt David Handley’s ideas, and began promulgating them, in collaboration withDavid Handley, in the booklet ‘Thirty-Two Questions and Answers’ (penned by Turney on June 5th. 1873). Perhaps because of vigorous opposition to David Handley’s views right from the beginning, by the prominent

Christadelphian John James Andrew (of the North London ecclesia), Robert Roberts by 1873, had decided to distanced himself from David Handley’s views. Nevertheless, Robert Roberts’ later disagreements in 1894, with his once trusted ‘lieutenant’ John James Andrew, over the exact definition of ‘sinful flesh’ (especially as it related to young infants), showed that the Central Christadelphian community was still far from unanimous in its thought concerning Atonement issues (Seethe ‘Roberts-Andrew’, 1894 Debates transcript).

[ C.] How flaws in Robert Roberts’ Atonement Theory, and some virtues in Edward Turney’s views, became increasingly apparent to later Editors of ‘The Christadelphian’ Magazine.

Robert Roberts’ later developed views on the Atonement were published in ‘The Slain Lamb’ (1873), and later in “The Blood of Christ”, issued in 1895. His views on the Atonement principally depended on his exegesis of two Scriptural passages : Romans 3:21-25 and Romans 8:3.

Robert Roberts believed that the term ‘righteousness’ in Romans 3:21-25 referred, primarily to God’s ‘justice’. Robert Roberts condemned all ‘substitutionary’ theories of the Atonement as being unjust, and he espoused the view that during the crucifixion of Christ, God was actually condemning Christ’s physical human nature - because it was sin-prone and mortal. Christ, in allowing Himself to be crucified, supposedly re-affirmed that Godwas just (righteous) to sentence Adam (and all his directposterity) to physical death (especially as it was alleged that human nature only became sin-prone after Adam’s transgression). As Robert Roberts expressed it in ‘The Blood of Christ’ :

“ …He [Jesus] was the very nature condemned in Eden, and therefore wrong was not done when He was impaled uponthe cross. ‘It pleased the Lord to bruise Him.’ Would it

please the Lord to do iniquity ? Nay. Therefore it was right.”

Regarding Romans 8:3, Roberts stated :

“ ..[the] condemnation of ‘sin in the flesh’, exhibited to the world the righteous treatment of sin. Itwas as though it was proclaimed to all the world, when the body [of Christ] was nailed to the cross: ‘This is how condemned human nature should be treated according tothe righteousness of God; it is fit only for destruction.” [‘The Blood of Christ’ , p. 19].

One principal weakness of this view of the Atonement is that it depends upon a very restricted definition of the Biblical term the ‘righteousness of God’, by equating the meaning of ‘the righteousness of God’ solely with ‘God’s strict justice’ [NOTE : the word ‘righteousness’ in the Greek is ‘dikaiosune’ ; and in the Hebrew, both ‘tsedeq’ and ‘tsedaquah’ can be translated in English as ‘righteousness’.] However, in the Koine Greek of the Septuagint and of the New Testament, the Greek meaning of the word ‘righteousness’(unlike the Classical Greek sense) often reflects the Hebraic meaning of the word ‘righteousness’. This means that the New Testament term ‘the righteousness of God’ [or ‘God’s righteousness’] often functions as a Hebraism,and has the principle meaning of ‘God’s merciful, rescuing activity’. This fact is much more widely known today, than it was during the nineteenth century, when Doctor Thomas and Robert Roberts were constructing their Atonement theologies. So for example, the Hebraism ‘the righteousness of God’ “God’s righteousness” occurs in Psalm 51:14, where it is more correctly translated not as ‘God’s justice’, but as God’s ‘saving power’ ( as In the Revised Standard Version), or as God’s ‘deliverance’ (cf. New Revised Standard Version); or as God’s ‘beneficence’ (cf. The Jewish Study Bible; JPS); or as God’s ‘goodness’ (cf. The New Catholic Bible).

Similarly, the Hebraism ‘the righteousness of God’ [‘God’s righteousness’] in Psalm 40:10 is more

correctly translated as God’s ‘saving help’, as in the R.S.V.; or as God’s ‘news of salvation’, as in ‘Today’s English Version’. An identical meaning to these examples the phrase ‘the righteousness of God’, may also be evident in Romans 1:17; 3:21, 22, 25 and 26 – that is, through the Gospel of Christ, God was demonstrating His ‘goodness’, His merciful ‘saving help’, His ‘saving power’ and His ‘deliverance’. (See Graham Jackman’s book : ‘The Language of the Cross’, 2008; pp. 61-67, for a very wellinformed Christadelphian analysis of this (Hebraic) Biblical concept of ‘the righteousness of God.’)

Another weakness of Robert Roberts’ view of the Atonement is that it appears to be unjust for a morally sinless man - who always successfully resisted his proneness to commit sin - to still have to suffer crucifixion upon the cross, in order to demonstrate what his human physical body was fit for. Christadelphians criticize all Substitutionary views of the Atonement as being morally unjust, but Robert Roberts’ view (as expressed in ‘The Blood of Christ’ [1895]) seems to suffer from this very same criticism – that is, it appears to be morally unjust. Another weakness with Robert Roberts’ view is that not all human physical nature will have to suffer physical death . For example, the saints who are alive at the second coming of Christ, will not undergo physical death (1 Cor. 15:51-54). Yet another difficulty is that it was Robert Robert’s contention that Jesus was initially raised from the dead,in the same physical, mortal body, in which he was crucified (See ‘The Birmingham Amended Statement of Faith’, authored by Robert Roberts; ‘Doctrines to be Rejected’ section, No. 17). But there seems to be an inconsistency in Robert Roberts’ beliefs here. Why would Jesus be raised in the same physical human nature, which He supposedly destroyed on the cross ?

The idea that physical human nature was intrinsically evil, because it was composed of intrinsically evil fleshy matter, was the view of the

Gnostics, and the Greek Platonists; and those Christadelphians who may have tended to believe that ‘sinful flesh’ was composed of an evil, quasi-physical substance, may have been in danger of straying into Gnosticism. Perhaps it was for reason that a later Editorof ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine felt compelled to write:

“Yet others believe that His [Jesus’] nature, which He shared with us, deserved God’s condemnation, and that this was publically declared at His crucifixion. Althoughthe word ‘flesh’ is often used in Scripture pejoratively,because in all mankind, with the exception of Christ, it has resulted in sin, flesh is not of itself condemned. While in man it is impossible to separate flesh and sin, in Christ they were separated . If flesh is worthy of condemnation, how in Christ could it be said that ‘the Word became flesh ?’” (Michael Ashton [writing as Editorof ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine; ‘Jesus Christ Came into the World to Save Sinners’, published in ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine for June, 1987).

The Christadelphian scholar Alan Eyre, writing about the influence of Calvinism upon Biblical thought, wrote:

“. .the doctrine of the hopeless, inherent sinfulness of human nature, can have no place in our [Christadelphian] thinking.” [ Allan Eyre; ‘The Christadelphian Tidings’; October, 1996.]

Within ancient Rabbinic Judaism, human nature was considered to be under the sway of two major competing impulses – an impulse to commit evil (known as the ‘yetzer ha-ra’), and an impulse to do good (known as the ‘yetzer ha tov’). Man was considered to be naturally weak and sin-prone, but the ‘yetzer ha-ra’ [the evil inclination] was considered capable of being mastered by the study, and the practical application of the Torah. The Talmud states:

“The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel … I have created the evil impulse, and I have created the Torah, as an antidote to it” (Talmud; Kid. 30b.) Within Rabbinic literature, the power of ‘Sin’ was occasionally personified. The Talmud states :

“ At first, sin is like an occasional visitor, then like a guest who stays awhile, and finally like the master of the house” (Genesis Rabbah 22.6; Talmud : Sukkah 52b).

John Carter, writing as the Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine, issued a ground breaking article entitled : “Sin and its Condemnation” (‘The Christadelphian’, April, 1956) which made a number of crucial points, some of which effectively corrected some errors in the thought of Robert Roberts. Some such points, presented by John Carter, include the following :

[i.] Sin is often personified in the Epistle to the Romans (as in Jewish Rabbinic literature) - Romans chapters 5 to 8 - and on such occasions, ‘Sin’ should preferably be spelt with a capital ‘S’, in order to signal its metaphorical usage. ‘Sin’ for example, is variously personified as being a slave owner (Romans 6:6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22; 7:14; 8:2); a house occupant (Rom. 7:7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 20); a paymaster (Rom. 6:23); a king (Rom. 5:21, 6:12); and asa militant enemy, who can use weapons and take prisoners of war (Rom. 6:13; 7:23). In Romans 8:3, John Carter correctly recognised that in Romans 8:3, ‘Sin’ was also being personified as ‘a Litigant’ in a Lawsuit, in a legal dispute concerning Jesus. Jesus always resisted Hisliability to commit sin, and never committed any transgressions, in though, word or deed. It is this moralfact which underlies the legal metaphor presented in Romans 8:3, where personified ‘Sin’ in Romans 8:3, is pictured as a litigant in a Lawsuit who loses any rightful claim to be the master of Jesus.

[ii.] The word ‘flesh’ (‘sarx’ in Greek) has a variety of meanings, and in Romans 6-8, it mainly refers to weak, godless human nature (i.e. human nature devoid of God’s Spirit), through which the power of Sin launches its attack from within a person. John Carter called this the ‘moral meaning’ of the word ‘flesh’ - and he distinguished it from the literal, physical meaning of the word ‘flesh’, which the Apostle John often emphasises in his Epistles (cf. 2 John 1:7). This is why Paul can claim that Christians are ‘no longer in the flesh’ (Rom. 8:9, A.V.), without thereby meaning that they are disembodied spirits. The meaning of not being inthe flesh, in Romans 8:9, is that faithful disciples of Christ are not primarily controlled by their godless human impulses, but by the Spirit of God. It is the confusion over these two principle meanings of the word ‘flesh’ (Greek : ‘sarx’) which has often confused much popular Christadelphian thinking.

[iii.] Paul’s depiction of personified ‘Sin’ residingwithin a sinner [Rom. 7:17, 20], is essentially metaphorical language, and it does not denote a physiological or physical substance called ‘sinful flesh’, or ‘physical sin-in-the-flesh. Instead, personified ‘Sin’, in the flesh of sinners, refers to an uncontrolled proneness to commit transgression, which actually results in transgression. People who habitually commit transgressions (‘sins’) can be metaphorically said(via the figure of metonymy) to be under the ethical control of ‘Sin’ - as if ‘Sin’ were a ‘house occupant’ residing within them, and controlling them as if ‘Sin’ was a ‘Slave master’. However, as Jesus was never a moral sinner, He could never be metaphorically described as being ‘a slave of sin’ (John 8:34, 35), nor could He be metaphorically described as being indwelt by ‘Sin’, asif it were a house occupant. Indeed, the Scriptures frequently proclaim that Jesus was indwelt by God (John 10:38; 14:10, 11, 20; 17:21; 2 Cor. 5:19).

Consequently, John Carter, as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’, was correct to state, with respect to Jesus, that :

“His [Jesus’] flesh did not yield to Sin. Jesus had not to say with Paul, that He failed to do what He would, or to bemoan that Sin dwelt in Him. He [Jesus] had not to say, ‘To will is present with me; but how to perform thatwhich is good I find not’. He [Jesus] knew the flesh was weak, but He, and not Sin, was the master.” (John Carter,‘The Christadelphian’, April, 1956, p. 130.)

One could also compare John Carter’s statement here, withJohn 14: 30, where Jesus states that : ‘the ruler of this world’ (Satan, the Devil) is coming – and he has nothing in Me.”

[iv.] John Carter also correctly recognized that Robert Roberts was wrong to translate the Greek term ‘sarkos hamartias’ as ‘sinful flesh’. Instead, John Carter believed (as did Edward Turney in 1873) that ‘sarkos hamartias’ should be more properly translated as: ‘flesh of sin’ , meaning ‘flesh the belongs to Sin’ or ‘Sin’s flesh’ – a rendering which preserves Paul’s intention of personifying ‘Sin’ as the customary moral master of all those who possess human physical flesh.

John Carter wrote with reference to the mistranslation of ‘sarkos hamartias’ as ‘sinful flesh’ :

“The translators [of the A.V.] have obscured this [ phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’] somewhat. The R.V. margin substitutes the literal translation ‘flesh of sin’ [meaning ‘flesh which belongs to Sin’, or ‘Sin’s flesh’] for the [A.V.] text ‘sinful flesh …in the present context[Rom. 8:3] it becomes clear that ‘sinful flesh’ does not strictly set forth Paul’s thought…in the phrase ‘flesh ofSin’ [Sin’s flesh], Paul is carrying on the figure of personification that he has used in [Romans] 6 and 7. Sinis represented [in the correct translation ‘Sin’s flesh] as the owner of the flesh, because men and women of fleshserve sin”

It is interesting to compare John Carter’s comment here, regarding the Greek phrase ‘sarkos hamartias’, with that made by the Christadelphian Edward Turney in 1873 - who tried unsuccessfully, to get this relevant point across to Robert Roberts. Edward Turney stated :

“We say that ‘sinful flesh’ is not the form of words, used by Paul, in Romans 8:3; and that no such expression is to be found in the Scripture…[the Greek] ‘sarkos hamartias’ is ..sin’s flesh. Every reader of the New Testament knows that sin is spoken of, as if it were a living being, a master ..Sin is therefore spoken of as a Possessor of men, and ‘sin’s flesh’ is flesh which belongs to sin.” ( Edward Turney, ‘The Christadelphian Lamp’, Nov. 1873, Vol.1, No. 1, p. 11, Reprint version);

Edward Turney also stated :

“There is no more mischievous error in translation in the whole Bible than Romans 8:3, which should not read ‘sinful’ but ‘sin’s flesh’.” (Edward Turney, ‘The Two Sons of God’, 1876, p. 122.)

John Carter correctly recognized Romans 8:3 as a Law court metaphor, where ‘Sin’, is personified as a Litigantin a lawsuit, contending against Jesus. Sin is pictured as seeking a legal claim to own Jesus as a slave, becauseJesus has appeared in common, human physical flesh. The man Jesus however, uniquely never succumbed to any moral transgression, and so ‘Sin’ loses his legal claim to be the master of Jesus. Paul had previously used the metaphors of ‘release from slavery’, and ‘the ransomingof prisoners of war’], but in Romans 8:3 Paul uses a juridical metaphor, in order to illustrate the actual vanquishing of the power of ‘Sin’ (not the vanquishing ofJesus’ alleged physical ‘sinful flesh’ - which is a mistranslation of ‘sarkos hamartias’).

John Carter put it this way :

“In Rom. 8:3 Paul pictures a contest at law, in which [personified] Sin claims a title to all mortal sonsof Adam. But the case goes against Sin. Sin is condemned by God the Judge, and the issue is decided in Christ. Since Christ has not yielded to sin [via transgression], Sin [personified as a Litigant in a lawsuit] has lost hisclaim, in the very domain that he regarded as his own – the domain of the [physical] flesh. So Paul’s figure runs.”

John Carter’s successor as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ – Louis Sargent – was in full agreement with John Carter, that in Romans 8:3, the apostle Paul was utilizing a law court metaphor, in which it was personified ‘Sin’ which was condemned, and not human nature per se.

Furthermore, Louis Sargent also agreed with another crucial point, that had been raised by Edward Turney in 1873, but vehemently resisted at the time, by Robert Roberts. The point concerns the precise meaning of the word ‘likeness’ used in Romans 8:3 – where God sent Jesus ‘in the likeness’ of Sin’s flesh. Edward Turney’s point made in his 1873 lecture ‘The Sacrifice of Christ’,was that Jesus was described as being ‘in the likeness’ of Sin’s flesh, because Sin was not the moral master of Jesus. Although Jesus, according to Turney, possessed thesame corruptible physical flesh as our own, with exactly the same desires and propensities that our own physical bodies possess, Jesus’ physical body was nevertheless, not under the moral domination of sin. Louis Sargent madeexactly the same point, as Edward Turney, regarding this expression ‘in the likeness of Sin’s flesh’ (Rom. 8:3), when applied to Jesus. When writing as the Editor of ‘TheChristadelphian’ magazine, Louis Sargent stated :

“..Romans 8:3 : [God sending His own Son in the likenessof Sin’s flesh] …. The subject of the sentence is God : He it is who ‘condemns sin’ as Judge. Because the Law could not establish righteousness, He sent His Son; sending Him ‘in the likeness of sin’s flesh’. In those words we pick up the metaphor of sin as a master who

possesses men as his slaves; but Christ was not his slavebecause He rejected temptation, and so for Him it is the ‘likeness’ of sin’s flesh, though it is the same flesh : ‘He also in like manner took part of the same’ [Heb.2:14]. Possessing this same human nature He was ableto be ‘for sin’ – literally ‘concerning sin’, a sacrificefor sin. As a sacrifice He ‘condemned sin’ – condemning it in that sphere where it had sway, the flesh. (There isno justification for making the phrase a compound, [so called] ‘sin-in-the-flesh’; to do so helps to confuse thinking.) It was not ‘human nature’ that was held under judgement : it was sin, in all its manifestations and wherever it held sway .” This recognition by John Carter and Louis Sargent, of‘the law court metaphor’ utilized in Romans 8:3, is also acknowledged by more astute translations of the New Testament. The paraphrased translation of the Epistle to the Romans 8:1-4, by Professor Charles Harold Dodd, reads:

“The Law of the Spirit of Life which is in Christ has setme free from the law of sin and death. Christ entered this human nature of flesh and blood which is under the dominion of Sin. Sin put in its claim to be his master; but Christ won His case; Sin was non-suited, its claim disallowed, and human nature was set free. The result is that all the Law stood for of righteousness, holiness, and goodness is fulfilled in those who live by Christ’s Spirit.” (Romans 8:1-4; in ‘The Meaning of Paul for Today’, Fontana Books).

Professor William Barclay, in his revised New Testament translation, also recognizes the Law court metaphor utilized in Romans 8:3. His translation reads :

“God ..by sending His own Son with a human nature like our sinful nature…sent Him to deal with sin, and to deal with it as a human person. He thus left sin without a case, and, because He won the victory over sin, the legitimate demand of the law is satisfied in us too, in us whose lives too are no longer directed by our lower

nature, but by the Spirit.” (William Barclay, Revised NewTestament; Romans 8:3-4). The underlying reality upon which Paul bases his Romans 8:3 law court metaphor, is the morally sinless life of Christ. Just as Noah’s obedient faith represented as a condemnation of the godless world (Hebrews 11:7); so in a similar fashion, Jesus’ obedient faith represented a legal condemnation by God of the personified power of Sin.

It is important to note here, is that, as Louis Sargent emphasized, it is ‘Sin’ which is metaphorically pictured as being ‘condemned’ – not human nature. This vital point was also recognized by another later Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine - Michael Ashton, whenhe wrote :

“..God by ‘sending His own Son .…condemned sin in the flesh’ (Romans 8:3). This phraseology [‘sin in the flesh’] has created confusion in the minds of many [Christadelphians], who believe it is saying that in the sacrifice of Christ, God was condemning [physical] flesh.If this is what is meant, we are asked to believe that our very natures, not only the disobedience which resultsfrom them, are worthy of God’s wrath – and so must Christ’s have been. Any doctrine that makes the Son of God a child of wrath must be rejected …..What the phrase in Romans 8:3 does mean is that sin was condemned by the sacrifice of Christ. Previously the ruler of every man, ‘for all have sinned’, in the body of Christ sin was destroyed [Col. 3:5]. In Him the propensity to sin was fully controlled, every temptation was resisted, every thought brought into subjection . God is righteous, and always acts righteously. A world, bent on sin, and with no hope of release, could only be redeemed when ‘the strong man’ of sin was bound (Matt. 12:29), and the real choice of a new master to whom allegiance could be directed was offered to mankind. The sending of Christ tomaster sin on its own territory was a righteous act whichfurthermore ‘declared (God’s) righteousness’”. (Michael

Ashton, Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine, June, 1987, p. 228).

Michael Ashton therefore (in contradiction to Robert Roberts’ ) believed that the condemnation of Sin, in the flesh of Jesus, had essential reference - not to the condemnation of the physical body of Jesus - but to the defeat of the power of Sin, via the sinless moral life ofChrist (cf. Col. 3:5; Rom. 8:13). To believe that Romans 8:3 has reference to the condemnation of Christ’s physical flesh, is to imply that Jesus was a ‘child of wrath’.

Michael Ashton’s thought is further strengthened by a recognition of the following facts:

[a]. The word ‘condemn’ used in Romans 8:3, is the Greekword ‘katakrino’. Katakrino (‘condemn’) is a Biblical term which always implies an element of moral responsibility. It was also a legal term which meant : ‘to be legally defeated’.But in what sense was Jesus responsible, or in any way guilty, for the human nature which He innocently inherited ? As Doctor Thomas stated in ‘Elpis Israel’ page 129 (14th Edition, Revised), to possess human nature may be a misfortune, but it is not a crime.

[b.] Romans 8:3, on the understanding of Robert Roberts,does not seem to explain the following verse of Romans 8:4 - which describes a state of moral empowerment, for those who are united to Christ. How, according to the arguments of Robert Roberts, can the ‘condemnation of Sin’ mentioned in Romans 8:3, lead to the morally empowering experience, whereby ‘the righteousness of the Law’ may now be fulfilled in us ? (Romans 8:4; cf. also Romans 10:4; 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14). If Romans 8:3 is merely about the physical body of Jesus being seen via crucifixion, to be receiving that which it is fit for (cf. ‘The Blood of Christ’, p. 19), because it was mortaland sin-prone – then Romans 8:4 should contain some statement registering a sense of shock and horror, at thethought that even the physical body of the sinless Jesus,

was fit only for destruction. Such shock and horror may then drive us to an experience of despair and sorrow, atthe realization that we possess evil physical bodies, composed of a quasi-physical substance called ‘sinful flesh’, which forces us to continue sinning. But there isno such note of shock, or any expressed sense of hopelessdespair in Romans 8:4. Instead, Romans 8:4 is a declaration of moral empowerment, which is available for those who follow the leading of God’s Spirit (cf. Romans 8: 9,13, 14). Christ’s moral victory over sin (depicted in Romans 8:3, via law court metaphor) is something that believers can participate in, as they are led by God’s Spirit, and grow in sanctification (Romans 6:19; Romans 8:13, 14).

Final Comments:

The Christadelphian historian, Andrew Wilson in his work ‘The History of the Christadelphians : 1864-1885’ (apublished higher university degree thesis), made the perceptive comment that the reason why ‘Clean flesh’ teachings, have constantly resurfaced over the years within the Christadelphian community, is because they were never properly discussed, in the first place. AndrewWilson accused Robert Roberts of utilizing rapid ‘political manoeuvres’, rather than detailed and exhaustive Biblical exegesis, in order to deal with Edward Turney. The situation was further complicated by the misunderstanding and/or the misrepresentation of Edward Turney’s views, by Robert Roberts. This seems to have led to the entrenched (but mistaken) view among manyChristadelphians, that Edward Turney actually believed that Jesus inherited a different, and superior nature, toourselves. In his work ‘The Slain Lamb –Dissected’ (which was a response to Robert Roberts’ 1873 lecture ‘The Slain Lamb’), Edward Turney gave evidence that he was being seriously misrepresented, and no less than ten theological falsehoods that were being attributed to him.Ironically, John James Andrew, who was Robert Roberts’ important ally in combatting the views of Edward Turney, in the 1870's, was himself later to similarly complain of

being misrepresented by Robert Roberts, during further Christadelphian Atonement debates in the 1890’s.

On October 14, 1873 - a mere 47 days after Edward Turney had delivered his Birmingham lecture, ‘The Sacrifice of Christ’, official moves were made to dis-fellowship both him, and all his sympathisers. However, with the benefit of hindsight, later Editors of ‘The Christadelphian’ magazine have been able to review some of Edward Turney’s ideas more objectively, and effectively concede that he was correct on several important points. These include :

1. That the Greek ‘sarkos hamartias’ in Romans 8:3, should be more accurately translated into English as‘Sin’s flesh’, and not as ‘sinful flesh’.

2. That the expression ‘Sin’s flesh’ represents a metaphorical personification of sin, which is pictured as a ‘slave owner’ and as a ‘litigant’ in alawsuit.

3. That the Apostle Paul, in Romans 8:3, is also utilizing Law court imagery, which depicts personified ‘Sin’ acting as a litigant in a lawsuit,losing his claim to be the master of Jesus, because Jesus, though in the flesh, committed no transgression.

4. Jesus shared the same human nature as ourselves, butHe was nevertheless, morally sinless. Therefore, ‘Sin’, personified as a ‘slave master’ and as a ‘house occupant’ in Romans 7:14-25 did not have any applicability to Jesus. Jesus was never a slave of Sin.

The availability of genuine new knowledge, concerning the Biblical languages, [which was not generally available to the ‘pioneers’] has also called for a cool re-appraisal of Christadelphian views. As the Editorial Committee (under Louis Sargent’s successor as Editor of ‘The Christadelphian’, Alfred Nicholls) stated :

“It follows … that any knowledge we have at any time on this subject [the Atonement] should continue to grow, as our experience, both of life and the Word of God, becomes deeper and richer, and new needs call forth new understanding’ (From the article ‘For Whom Christ Died’, published in ‘The Christadelphian’, 1971, pp. 358-363).