"It is depressing to see a point like this zealously debated where the real teaching of the whole case is unappreciated or unacted on."
Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1879

 

The Mind of Christ

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus'

There are a number of doctrinal difficulties which have arisen over the years concerning the mind of Christ. These problems are easily solved if preconceptions and self-willed ideas are made subject to the claims of Bible, and a dose of logic. Let's step through some of these things then and see what the Bible, logic and a little history can teach us on this subject.

Internal Tempter or External Tempter?

It is with interest that we find brother Robert Roberts in 1879 writing upon this topic. In an article he says, "The nature of the tempter in the case of Christ has always been a much disputed question." This comment was interesting in that nothing has changed over the course of the last 100 years. The issue is still disputed today.

It does seem though that the majority of Christadelphians believe that the temptation was strictly an internal conflict within the mind of the Lord. That seems to be the popular Christadelphian belief today. Having rejected the orthodox devil, Christadelphians seem to believe that moving the conflict solely within the mind of the Lord is the logical thing to do. Many, further, seem to believe that that position is original Christadelphian teaching.

Brother Roberts went on to write, "It is really of no practical importance where the orthodox devil is discarded." I do not unconditionally agree with this claim. Ideas are often not islands unto themselves. Ideas often connect to other ideas. One idea will either support or negate other ideas. One idea may serve as a foundation for other ideas, or it may be the battle-axe used to demolish others. It depends on what you do with the teachings of an internal tempter or external tempter, if anything, that may make the nature of the tempter important or less important.

It will be very profitable to spend some time reading early Christadelphian expositions on the topic. These have been laid out in chronological order so that the writers' positions can be traced.

 

Internal Tempter or External Tempter? What Early Christadelphians Taught

"The testimonies show that Jesus was ‘under sin’ as a man under a burden. He groaned under it in painful travail. While among the wild beasts of the wilderness (a similar situation to the first Adam’s), he felt the danger and desolation of his situation and the cravings of a long protracted fast. He ate nothing all this time, his life being sustained by the Spirit; and at the end, became very hungry. Luke terms this ‘being forty days put to the proof under diabolos,’ or sin; that is, in his case, under the perturbation of weakened flesh and blood. This was before the adversary came to him. His nature was severely tried during this period; and it remained to be seen whether his flesh, thus weakened, would stand in the truth; or like Adam’s, seek present gratification by transgressing the divine law. The end of the forty days appears to have been the prepared crisis of the trial. At this juncture one came to test him. Jesus styles him, as he termed Peter, ‘Satan,’ that is, adversary. This individual, probably, was an angel; for angels were concerned in the matter, as appears from the testimony. Christ’s visitor was evidently a person of scriptural information; and as he appeared as a tester at a time especially prepared for the trial, I have no doubt he was sent by the same Spirit that led Jesus into the wilderness, there to be put to the proof. I conclude then, that he was ‘an angel of light,’ not shining with brightness; but appearing as a friendly man, well instructed in the Word." (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, reprinted in The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 532)

"3. Was there not a tempter in Christ’s case personally distinct from Jesus?
Ans. Yes. But that tempter was not a serpent, nor 'the Serpent;' but one sustaining the character of a personal adversary to him.
4. If the tempter be distinct from Christ, the tempted, can we be safe or justified in departing from that idea?
Ans. We are not justified in so doing; therefore I have been careful to abide by what is written without regard to the glosses of 'theology,' and the petitio principii of 'divines.” (John Thomas, Herald of the Kingdom and Age to Come, reprinted in The Christadelphian, 1880, 385-386)

"As to the devil that tempted Jesus, the same style of argument applies. The word 'devil' avails nothing for the other popular theory, because Judas was a devil, and yet a man, (Jno. 6:70.) The dumb idols of the Gentiles were devils, though lifeless blocks of wood and stone (1 Cor. 10:20). The tempter of Jesus was a personage having political patronage in his hands, pro. tem., which suggests the likelihood of his having some connection with the State of Rome. 'All the kingdoms of the world' must be read in a limited sense, for the simple reason that the tempter took Jesus to the top of a mountain to see that which was so designated. Now, from the top of a mountain, a radius of some eighty or hundred miles is all that could be seen, and the tract of country so seen would be in Palestine. The offer of power would therefore relate to that country. If it be contended that Christ was absolutely and miraculously shown 'all the kingdoms of the world,' what shall be alleged as the reason for the tempter ascending an elevation to show him them? Ascending an elevation would have been no assistance to see 'all' the countries on earth. If there was anything supernatural in it, there was no necessity for going up a hill at all. In a clear atmosphere, like that of Syria, Christ could be shown the greatest part of Judea from any of the hilly eminences with which the country abounds, and we can understand how a Roman Emperor (say) would seek to satisfy what he would suppose to be Christ’s ambition, by offering him the dominion of Syria, on condition of doing homage to the political god of Rome, as all the kings of the Roman habitable did, far and near." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1866, p. 119)

" The temptation of Christ is brought forward with a like incomplete result. The conclusion extracted from the recital of the incidents of the case is, that 'the devil could not have been the personification of evil in Christ;' but must have been 'a separate personality, an external being, performing all to himself, and suggesting to Jesus that he should do certain things.' This is granted: but the question remains, Who was this 'separate personality,' this 'external being?' As to this, we have no information, and must be content to remain in ignorance. That it proves the existence of the popular devil, will not be contended by any logical mind.' (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1872, p. 309)

"When the tempter suggested to Jesus the conversion of stones into bread, it was an appeal to the lust of the flesh; when he showed him the kingdoms, it was an appeal to the lust of the eye; and when he bade him throw himself from the pinnacle of the temple, he appealed to the pride of life.' (FR Shuttleworth, The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 103)

"The nature of the tempter in the case of Christ has always been a much disputed question. It is really of no practical importance where the orthodox devil is discarded. It is the principles involved in the temptation that call for attention as applicable to ourselves. Whether the tempter was external or internal, or both; or whether the temptation was done in reality or trance, the guidance of Christ’s example to his brethren is the same. Their temptations take all shapes without altering the principle that achieves the victory. Therefore it is practically immaterial what sort of a devil it was that put Christ to the proof, provided it be recognised that the supernatural immortal fiend of popular theology is out of the question It is more than probable that Christ’s temptation, like that of Adam and all his brethren, included an external tempter and those internal feelings to which he could appeal. It certainly was not his flesh nature merely, because it is testified that when the temptation was ended, 'the devil left him for a season,' which his flesh nature did not do. Who the personal tempter was cannot be decided, because there is no testimony. It is a matter of little consequence. It is depressing to see a point like this zealously debated where the real teaching of the whole case is unappreciated or unacted on." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1879, p. 113-114)

"W.W.—You ought not to insist upon a positive view of an open question. The form of Christ’s tempter in the desert is not revealed any more than the identity of Job’s Satan, and to contend strenuously for a particular view is unnecessary where the fact of the temptation is admitted. The statement that Christ was tempted it all points like as we are does not prove that the tempter was not external and personal. We have external and personal tempters as well as internal susceptibilities. The latter indeed cannot be thoroughly put to the test without the former. We may be tempted by our feelings, doubtless, but never so powerfully as when those feelings are appealed to by a second person. Your argument lowers Christ to too low a plane. The same nature he truly was, but you must remember there are many varieties and conditions of our common nature—from the untutored savage of the common felon to the balanced mentality of refinement and culture. Human nature in the hand of God was a form not known to men. We must not give Christ the lowest but the very highest place. He was the work of God for righteousness, and therefore immeasurably above 'mere men,' though tempted in all points like them." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1886, p. 572)

"J. H.—There can be no temptation without external incitement. Though all propensities are internal, they act upon external objects, and these have to be presented to constitute temptation. Subjective temptation, or temptation without external suggestion, is only possible in a very depraved nature. Hence, there was a necessity for an external tempter in Eden, as in the case of Christ. Adam and Eve were both in the innocent state, and it would not have occurred to them to do otherwise than comply with the law that had been given. The natural serpent furnished the suggestion which led to disobedience. There was 'mental conflict' truly, but this required exciting cause, for cause was not yet active in themselves, as it came to be in their ordinary descendants. The curse on the serpent shows it was a separate object or agent in the transaction,—distinct from the pair whom he led into sin. As to how it affected the individual serpent, it must have suffered from the curse pronounced. The absence of express information need be no difficulty. But that the words addressed to it went beyond it, and laid hold of coming history and the spiritual relations of mankind, is evident both from a consideration of their scope, and from the employment of the serpent as a spiritual symbol in later communications. It will be conceded that the woman’s seed is Christ. It must, therefore, have been that the serpent’s seed signified his human enemies, who hurt him only in the heel, since resurrection rescued him from the harm they designed to inflict. But this no more excludes the literality of the original serpent than the literality of the first man or the forbidden tree. In all figure, there is a literal basis. If there had been no literal serpent, the basis of the figure would be wanting. The serpent considered as the circumstantial originator of sin, comes naturally to be considered as the father of sinners, and these as its seed: hence also the father of lies (Jno. 8:44) Hence also, the natural symbol of the constitution of the present evil world—'the old serpent, the devil, and Satan' (Rev. 12:9). The 'binding of the devil spoken of in Revelation' is much more than 'the restraining of the evil mentalities of the human race.' It is otherwise expressed as 'ruling mankind with a rod of iron.' This is the coercion of human will: the executive of human antagonism; the compulsion of human submission to divine law by means as effectual as that which overthrew the rebellion against Moses in the wilderness. Human governments in the aggregate are the Satanism of the human race organised, and therefore fittingly symbolised by 'the old serpent' which introduced the era of human insubordination." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1890, p. 384-385)

"In regard to the temptation of Jesus, of which Job seems to have been a type, we find that the Spirit led him into the wilderness for the express purpose of subjecting him to a temptation by the devil (diabolos). He was required to undergo a forty days’ and nights’ fast as a preparation for his temptation. Never before was the flesh put in a more favourable condition for the success of a temptation or severity of test than in the case of Jesus. The degree of resistance is thus measured by the awful severity of the temptation. No wonder angels speedily appeared to him thereafter, to minister to his pressing wants. Being thus prepared by the Spirit, or the Father, for the temptation, 'the tempter came.' Who he was I do not know. Some have suggested that probably the adversary (satan) was an angel. It is possible, but I do not think so, as angels were afterwards sent to Jesus to minister to his wants. He was at least some one possessing special power for the occasion. At all events the real tempter, so far as Jesus was concerned personally, was the terrible promptings, longings, and desires, born of the imperative cravings of his flesh, prepared, therefore, by a long fast. He was exposed to the three channels of temptation belonging to the flesh (1 John 2:16), and the temptation returned to him again in the terrible agony of Gethsemane when He prayed to be delivered from the fearful scourgings and ignominy before him. It matters not who the adversary or external tempter was in the temptation in the wilderness, as his character is alone given. He was at all events a satan, for he gave Jesus adverse counsel, as Peter also did sometime afterwards. He was a devil also, for he laboured hard to get Jesus to yield to the promptings of his flesh and cross the line of obedience, and fall in transgression. Being for the occasion a representative of the serpent-power, or sin-power of the world, he could appropriately offer Jesus all the kingdoms of this world, founded upon the thinking of the flesh, or the sin-principle, or the fleshy serpent-principle, if Jesus would submit to a worship of sinful flesh, as headed up representatively in the external tempter. He was not as successful, however, as the serpent was with Eve, for Jesus resisted every pleading of the flesh with a 'thus it is written.' Having triumphed over the promptings, cravings, and reasonings of the flesh, urging to disobedience, he returned in the power of the Spirit to Jerusalem, after angels had administered to his wants created by his long fast. Such is the temptation of Jesus. It all fits in with and forms another link in the chain, whose first link was forged in Eden. (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1892, p. 173-174)

"Answer: Though the devil is a liar and the father of lies, he sometimes speaks the truth as all sinners sometimes do when it serves their purpose. He did so on this occasion when he said, 'It is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee.' It was truly so written, and that too concerning the Messiah. So when he said 'All this power is delivered unto me, and to whomsoever I will I give it,' he expressed the truth. In its general form, Job expressed the same truth thus: 'The earth he hath given into the hand of the wicked.' In its particular form, it would be true of the personal executive of 'the wicked' in power at the time of the temptation. Who the tempter was is not revealed, but it was some one having the control of place, power, and wealth; otherwise there would have been no temptation in the offer. We know it is not the popular devil that distributes the prizes of political life: it is flesh and blood in some particular official incarnation. What this form was in the case of Christ’s tempter is not made known, and we shall never know till the day when we shall know as we are known. Sufficient that it was one having the power to give exaltation and wealth 'to whomsoever he willed.' This power he would (providentially) receive from on high: for 'the powers that be are ordained of God' (Rom. 13.) for 'the Most High ruleth in the kingdoms of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will' (Dan. 4:17.) (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1892, p. 65)

"C. F. O. O.—There are subjects on which no wise man will be positive. There are problems which, proving insoluble after a certain amount of handling, have to be left—with carefulness only that the insolubility be not used as a lever against truth otherwise and independently proved. Among the subjects in this position is the form and identity of Christ’s tempter in the wilderness. The devil has so many shapes—one’s own corrupt nature, 'evil men and seducers' outside, the organised opposition of the principalities and powers of the present evil world to God—even an angel in extreme cases—(Num. 22:22; 1 Chron. 20:1, compared with 2 Sam. 24:1)—that it is impossible to determine by the mere term 'devil' or 'Satan' what the form of the diabolism may be. It is a matter immaterial in this case so long as the devil of priestcraft is kept out. It is the fact of Christ’s temptation that is the great fact: put to the proof before exaltation: 'tempted in all points like as we are.' You think this decides it that Christ’s temptation was in himself—not outside. This by no means follows. Adam was tempted by a personal tempter. We are often tempted by outside tempters. Doubtless, we are tempted inside as well. But if Christ was tempted 'in all points like as we are, yet without sin,' then his temptation may have been by an external tempter also, as we believe. He will tell us when we meet him, unless indeed it will be all clear without asking then, according to what he says, 'In that day, ye shall ask me nothing' (John 16:23.) (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1896, p. 59-60).

The arguments in favor of the external tempter advanced by early Christadelphians include:

It is clear why early Christadelphians believed the tempter was external. In reading through the list and in thinking about these things I do not see how anyone, in possession of these facts, can come to any other conclusion than that which the pioneer brethren came to. Unless they believe Jesus' nature "left him for a season". When then did it return? Just before he was crucified? It is an absurd line of thought.

 

'Clean Mind'?

There are some who have claimed that if the tempter was external, then Christ had a 'clean mind'. Those who use this label 'clean mind', have borrowed from the term 'clean flesh' and what these persons are doing is trying to align those who teach the external tempter with the error of 'clean flesh'. Frankly, I know they would not be so willing to use the pejorative label against John Thomas or Robert Roberts.

Having listened to some of the arguments (mostly from the UK) on this topic, I have detected that the persons involved in this line of argument do not understand that 'the law of sin and death' is a physical law of the body (physical) which operates upon the brain(physical), and that the brain is the physical organ whose 'thinking' produces 'the mind' (mental/moral). They do not seem to comprehend that the brain and the mind are not one and the same and that one can have a defiled body, by virtue of being born of a woman, and yet be God manifest in character, or the manifestation of the Divine mind -- by virtue of being the begotten Son of God.

"Clean flesh" was the term used against those who denied that "the law of sin and death" was a physical law of the body. They denied that to be "made sin" was to have a defiled physical nature. (Clean Flesh teachers have never denied the mortality of man, but rather, they have consistently denied "sin in the flesh"). The mind is not a physical thing. The brain is the physical organ in which "the mind" is generated. So those who use this term, "clean mind", do a disservice to the brotherhood by confusing a physical term (clean flesh) with a non-physical issue ('clean mind'). There's enough ignorance and confusion of the issues already without this added confusion.

Next, if the argument is as simple as coming up with a derogatory appellation then the easy answer is that apparently they believe the Lord had a 'dirty mind'. When the Scriptures tell us to have the mind of Christ is this what we are being exhorted to have? A mind that tempts itself. A mind that is driven to schizophrenically test the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life? It really makes me wonder how much time some brethren must spend thinking about God's holiness, and the perfect manifestation of holiness that Christ was, though he was "in the flesh" as a matter of physical nature.

 

Could the Lord Then Be Tempted?

The obvious question which follows this then is "could the Lord be tempted?". Some brethren conclude that if the tempter was external then perhaps the Lord could not be tempted. As brother Roberts noted, Adam was capable of temptation and that was the very basis upon which the external Edenic tempter put Adam to the test! The external tempter is not proof of an inability to be tempted (what an inversion of logic!), rather the tempter's existence is proof that temptation is possible!

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted (peirazo), he is able to succour them that are tempted (peirazo). (Heb 2:18)

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted (peirazo) like as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)

Jas 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted (peirazo), I am tempted (peirazo) of God: for God cannot be tempted (apeirastos) with evil, neither tempteth (peirazo) he any man: But every man is tempted (peirazo), when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.

The second Adam was put into the exact same position as the first in this regards: he was fitted mentally and morally with Divine knowledge as the first Adam was, and then his character was put to the test by an external tempter. There is a type in Adam (and the serpent) and an antitype found in the Lord Jesus Christ (and the human serpent or adversary which came to him and then left him for a season) which fit so perfectly that I marvel brethren are willing to overlook it.

Brother Roberts saw no contradiction as some modern brethren seem to. He wrote,

"It is an idle question that has been raised by theologians, whether Christ was 'peccable' or 'impeccable,' in view of the fact that he was driven into the wilderness expressly for the purpose of being tempted of the devil. If he was not capable of sinning, he was not capable of being tempted. A popular writer has well said: 'Some, in a zeal, at once intemperate and ignorant, have claimed for him (Christ), not only an actual sinlessness, but a nature to which sin was divinely and miraculously impossible. What then? If his great conflict were a mere deceptive phantasmagoria, how can the narrative of it profit us? If we have to fight the battle, clad in that armour of human free-will which has been hacked and riven about the bosom of our forefathers by so many a cruel blow, what comfort is it to us if our great captain fought not only victoriously, but without real danger? not only uninjured, but without even the possibility of wound?' It is facts, and not the metaphysical theories of facts, that wise men concern themselves with. Metaphysics land a man in the inconceivable. We have no faculty for dealing with the abstract. We cannot follow God, as it were, in the process by which He has concreted His eternal spirit into the forms and functions of created life. It is the practical relations of the latter that concern us. On this principle, it is sufficient to note that Christ was tempted, without enquiring whether or not it was possible he could yield to temptation. The speculation only becomes material, and that in a bad sense, when it is made to interfere with that free volition of Christ, which was essential to the righteousness he came to fulfil, the very nature of which consists in the willing and witting subordination of the human will to the divine: ('not my will but thine be done.')" (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1886, p. 200-201)

 

Was the Lord Jesus Christ's Will Separate From The Father's?

"Not my will, but thine be done". If you say that Christ's "will" was one and the same as the Father's, in a sense that suggests Christ had no will of his own, then you rob Christ of the victory. There are some who will say the Father and Jesus Christ had "one will" and deny "that he had a will of his own". This makes the Lord an automaton. "Not my will, but thine be done". I came "not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me". Jesus had a will which he subjected to the will of the Father. The denial of this is, again, an old error which brother Roberts address in The Christadelphian, 1876, p. 119. There is a lengthy letter to, and a response from, brother Roberts on the topic. The letter and brother Roberts' response are well worth reading.

 

Is "Will" of the Mind or Body?

Will is an expression of the mind, but it can and is influenced by the propensities that arise from the body.

 

Was the Lord's Learning a Result of Sonship or That Which He Suffered?

Sonship put him in the position of obtaining that which he needed to overcome. Learning does not come from a title or position but through labor, experience and trial.

What Does "Perfect" Mean?

The Lord Jesus Christ was perfect. We accept some statements that have no qualification, though the statements are not really accurate as absolutes. The Lord was mortal. Is mortality part of a state of perfection? The Lord was perfect in character. But his mind could not be "perfect" in the most literal sense -- in being freed from the unlawful impulses that arise from the body -- so long as he was still mortal. For whatever reason (western thinking, the constructs of the English language, or bad logic) I think we impose an absolute black and white on top of Scripture language. But then again, we do not use the term "perfect" with the same totality when dealing with things outside of the Bible. Though once we turn to the Bible we use the term with a sense of totality that excludes anything but absolute total perfection, without condition, qualification or exception.

 

Could the Lord Have an Evil Thought?

One of the final questions raised might be "Could the Lord have an evil thought?" Knowing that he was of our same defiled nature, he undoubtedly could have, as a matter of theory. As the quote from brother Roberts says, "what comfort is it to us if our great captain fought not only victoriously, but without real danger? not only uninjured, but without even the possibility of wound?". But we have to properly place what he could have done, as a theory, versus who he was and what he actually did.

"He who has seen me has seen the father". Does anyone, outside of a trinitarian, imagine the Lord was talking about his physical nature? If it was not in a physical sense then he must have meant the mental and moral manifestation were so complete that he could speak of himself as being the Father and as having come down from heaven!

We are told, "Out of the heart proceed evil thoughts." What was the heart of the Lord? Was his heart conflicted like ours? If he was "drawn away by his own lusts and enticed" then how was sin never conceived?

This is where some Christadelphians tend towards mere-manism. That is to say, they struggle with trying to understand a man who was, by birth, born of a woman, made of our defiled nature and yet who was in character, the manifestation of the Father. In this struggle, wanting to avoid ideas of the apostasy, some brethren lean towards mere-manism and they pattern their understanding of the Lord's mind after their own ill begotten experience. Brother Roberts noted this tendency towards mere-manism, as an over-reaction against the Trinity, in his own day:

"F. M.—Agreed, that the individual styled 'mine own self' in John 5:30, 'would have been no benefit to us of himself,' and that 'Deity is all and all to us through him.' This is the very truth which we seek to uphold, as against the 'mere-manism' which the rebound from Trinitarianism has led some into. Our object in the remarks referred to, was to call attention to the fact, that Jesus is one and the Father another, as a corrective of the extreme of which your letter was not the first indication we had seen." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1870, p. 214)

I think brother Roberts point bears repeating: "It is facts, and not the metaphysical theories of facts, that wise men concern themselves with. Metaphysics land a man in the inconceivable." Brother Roberts wrote elsewhere,

"The testimony is explicit as to his physical nature being the same as the children, and this is not to be set aside by any conceptions we may form as to the modus operandi of God-manifestation. We sympathise with those who seek to keep the Father in Christ in view, but we think they create needless difficulty by seeking to enforce their own inferences as to how the manifestation was accomplished. There is a possibility of being wise above that which is written. The Spirit’s union with the flesh of David does not mean amalgamation, for then would the Lord Jesus have been of a different nature to his brethren. Wisdom lies in desisting from all attempts to define the mode of the mystery of Godliness, and implicitly accepting the testimony of the word; no part of which must be invalidated by our reasonings thereon. Mere-manism is blasphemy, and semi-spirit substanceism, is an error in the other extreme. Believers in Christ ought to renounce both, and unite on common ground." (Robert Roberts, The Christadelphian, 1873, p. 479)

Who then was Jesus Christ? I believe this question is lost sight of and it is lost in the debates over internal and external temptation, and whether the Lord could sin or not &c. Issues are debated while "the real teaching of the whole case is unappreciated".

"69. Was not Jesus God manifest in the flesh? If you say that Adam was God manifest in the flesh as well (but surely no one would go to such a terrible depth of mere-manism, how comes it that the only place where Christ is called Adam, introduces Christ as a contrast to Adam, saying “the first man is of the earth, earthy, the second Adam is Lord from heaven?” (Robert Roberts, Questions and Questions)

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13)
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. (John 6:38)
The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim. (Isa 40:3)

"After this manner, then, the Eternal Power, or Yahweh, became flesh; and commenced the initiation of his promise, that He would be to Israel for Elohim. The chief Eloah was now born; and, as the Star of Jacob cradled in a manger, received the homage of the wise, and the acclamation of the heavenly host. This babe was the 'body made in secret' through which 'the Eternal Spirit,' when it should attain to 'the fulness of the times,' designed to manifest himself. That time had arrived when 'Jesus began to be about thirty years of age.' He was now to be 'sent forth;' 'being made under the law, that them under law he might purchase from it, that we might obtain the Sonship'—Gal. 4:5. His sending forth was subsequently to his immersion, and preceded by his anointing with holy spirit. Though born of 'Yahweh’s Handmaid' six months after John the Immerser, John said of him, 'after me cometh a man who hath been preferred to me; for he was before me.' Isaiah styles him Yahweh and Elohim, in his prophecy concerning John as 'The Voice' that was to herald his manifestation; saying, 'Prepare ye the way of Yahweh, make straight in the desert a highway for our Elohim'—ch. 40:3. The Father was one Eloah, and Jesus was another; so that in this unity were developed two, who, in the Hebrew plural, are termed Elohim. Here, then, was a practical illustration of the phrase, so often occurring in the scriptures of the prophets, 'Yahweh Elohim,' most incorrectly rendered in the English Version, 'Lord God.' Based upon this combination of holy spirit and flesh, Jesus said to Nicodemus, 'I say unto thee, We speak what we do know, and testify what we have seen; and ye receive not our witness. Here was plural manifestation in unity. This is abundantly evinced in all the New Testament. Hence, on another occasion, Jesus said to the Jews, 'I and the Father are one'—one what? We are, in the words of Moses, 'One Yahweh.' The Jews, who 'judged after the flesh,' were indignant at this, and attempted to stone him for blasphemy; saying that, 'because being a man, he made himself Deity.' But Jesus rebuked the charge of blasphemy with an argumentum ad homines which was unanswerable. 'Is it not written in your law, I said ye are Elohim, and Sons of the Highest, all of you?' Ps. 82:6. If He (the Deity) called them Elohim to whom the word of the Deity came, (that is, to their fathers,) and the scriptures cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, 'Thou blasphemest' because I said, I am Son of the Deity? 'Know that the Father is in me, and I in him:'—and that 'he who hath seen me hath seen the Father'—John 10:30; 14:9. (John Thomas, Eureka, vol 1, p. 102)

"In my original, it has Moses addressing a company of Israelites, in the lower corner of the left, and pointing to the 'I' and the 'Who' as the practical illustration of Deut. 6:4. In the lower corner of the right, is John the Baptist, pointing to the visible Who I will be, and declaring that 'he was before him.' At the feet of Who is a symbol of Who’s relation to Judah, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the root and off-spring of David. If you imagine the human figure removed, the convergence to, and divergence from, from a common centre, would be destroyed, and the utterances would all be confused and without consistent signification. The flesh is the focus of the invisible I’s converging utterances and assumed power, as a vail for the purpose of condemning sin therein; after which, the same power (Ail) converts it into his own substance—spirit. Take away the converging power, indicated by the lines following upon the back of Who’s head, and you have an illustration of the mere-manism of the profane vain babblers of our time; blasphemers, who make a mere man affirm that he came down from heaven, and is the equal of God . . ." (John Thomas, The Christadelphian, 1871, p. 240)

For further reading and thinking upon this subject I recommend the following writings:

God Manifest in the Flesh - 1879
On the Nature of Christ - 1867
The Origin and Nature of Jesus Christ - 1868
The Plant of Renown and Mystery of Godliness - 1875
Deity Manifest in the Flesh - 1876

There are also some sections of Phanerosis, Eureka, Yahweh Elohim and other books that have good sections on the topic.

From: [A Christadelphian Truth Seeker]

Brother Stephen,

On reading the article (if i can refer to it as that) I am enlightened in the conclusive evidence you've provided. Being brought up in a "Christ was a man like us" culture, I do struggle a little with some arguments, but overall, I have absorbed what you have provided. Thank you.

I am still struggling with one concept. If, Christ's mind is a reference to how he manifested our Father, and therefore the scripture "Know that the Father is in me, and I in him:'—and that 'he who hath seen me hath seen the Father" is an expression of his perfect mind, I cannot understand how then he could sin, and it opens up his temptation to being pointless in a sense. I'm not saying that your outcome is wrong, but I am questioning that concept.

To: [A Christadelphian Truth Seeker]

How God could be manifest in flesh is a difficult subject. We are dealing with two ideas that are a total contrast: God & flesh. One is perfect and holy and just and good and the other is weak, of the earth, the devil. So the mind of Christ was the mind of the Father. The body of the Lord, physically, was of the earth. "Sin could not have been condemned in the body of the Lord" if his body was not under that common law of sin and death.

Here is our problem: The human mind likes to break down every idea, to the simplest form we can put it in, and then we want to put it into its own little box. We judge and value, or devalue, those things based on what our life's experiences or knowledge add to the equation. You cannot do that with this subject (as well as some others that have been the source of conflict in the brotherhood). The Lord was unique. "And without controversy great is the mystery (musterion, hidden thing) of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory" (1st Timothy 3:16).

If Christ was simply "a man like us" then why was his Father Divine? If the Messiah only required to be a man like us then a natural father would have sufficed. God could have worked with him all the same. The Divine conception, after all, has been a stumbling block to Jew and gentile. Yet, the Father, in His wisdom, saw it as necessary. But why was it necessary that his Father be Divine? It is beyond anything we have any personal experience or knowledge of, outside of what the Bible gives us. It is, partially, that lack of knowledge about who the Christ was that pushes brethren towards mere-manism. We understand, or rather some of us understand, human nature, the devil. But do we understand the Christ? As a community, no we do not. But then, if you go back to The Christadelphian for the 1870's and read about this controversy, you will see there were brethren who did not understand it then either.

So we have two conflicting ideas: God vs "sin in the flesh". It was necessary to have Jesus, the body prepared, for the manifestation and condemnation of sin. "Sin in the flesh" was necessary, for it was necessary that he be made like his brethren whom he would save. How could he be "touched with the feelings of our infirmities" if he were not of that same earthy nature? But it was also necessary that the Christ spirit, the Logos, be the mental and moral manifestation, or character of the man. I think it is important to understand that the Scriptures do not represent this as something that was simply poured into his mind, or that somehow the electro-chemical functioning of the brain was forced into the Divine pattern. We are told that he "learned obedience" by the things he suffered. This indicates, as is consistent with other Scriptures on the subject, that this was a genuine struggle against the physical human nature he was born with. But he was "helped", "strengthened" and "overcame" by the Divine spirit.

If these words, words which the Scriptures apply to the Lord, were not true, then it would be impossible to see how his "victory" was a "victory" or how his "example" is any kind of example. Not that we have a chance of ever being sinless. But we are exhorted, and commanded, to work towards "perfection" anyway as a response to the grace that has been shown to us.

> If... I cannot understand how then he could sin, and it opens up his temptation to being pointless in a sense

This is part of the point that brother Roberts was making about what-if reasoning. He said it was safer to simply accept the revelation of Scripture than to engage in abstract and overly theoretical (metaphysical) reasoning . When you take either aspect of the Lord too far and you deny those essential characteristics of either a) Jesus Christ's manifestation of God or b) his condemnation of sin in the flesh, you know you have taken one of the two aspects too far and it all becomes "pointless".

Stephen

"Cannot the statement in the Psalm be literally true in the case of Jesus on such an occasion as this? 'O God, thou knowest my foolishness, and my sins are not hid from thee.' If Jesus did not feel the hateful burden of the flesh in his temptation, how can we understand that other statement concerning him?—'Who in the days of his flesh when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto Him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared' (Heb. 5:7). Yet he may be said to only mentally recognise the existence in himself of that which appertains to the flesh, while he did not, for one moment, consent to its allurements, but, as expressed in the record, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass from me, yet not my will, but thine be done.' Yet even here, his frailty was such that an Angel appeared to strengthen him.

"To recognise this aspect of him is very different from the idea that there was in Jesus Christ any thought offensive to God, or that his character was tainted by the corruption that was in him. Had he passed over the line of injunction there would have been sin in the sense of transgression. Had he desired to transgress the injunction laid upon him how could he have manifested perfect obedience? He did not err even in thought, but his frailty, like that of his brethren, was such that even he needed help, and, in his temptations, felt the burden of sin’s flesh. This exhibition of him in the garden of Gethsemane is to us an incentive to righteousness, and this aspect of him in the Psalms, and amplified in many portions of Scriptures, is given to us in order to enable us to cultivate that 'mind which was in Christ.' It is for us to discern the significance of these records, and to apply them to our own edification.

"Jesus also furnishes us with an illustration of his own relationship to sin, saying: 'As the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up.' What occurred in the wilderness? According to the record, with which we are all familiar, the children of Israel transgressed the word of God, in consequence of which fiery serpents were sent among them. The serpents bit the children of Israel in consequence of their transgression. In order to heal those that were bitten, Moses was commanded to make a serpent of brass, and impale it upon a pole, and whosoever looked at the serpent was healed. Now comes the question: Why should those who had sinned be delivered from death by looking upon the brazen serpent? Was it not because the serpent represented their sin, the biter in the case, for the sting of death is sin? What, then, by the parallel, do we see affixed to the tree in the person of Jesus. Was it not that which brought death to the human race? Whence cometh sin? From the flesh. Hence we see flesh crucified upon the tree in the person of Jesus. Thus it is written: 'Forasmuch as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he likewise himself partook of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the Devil' (Heb. 2:14). The Devil, or adversary, is sin. How could the adversary be destroyed by the death of Christ if sin was not in, or did not take hold of the flesh of Jesus? Therefore, it is written: 'He himself bare our sins in his body on (or to) the tree' (1 Pet. 2:24). When we look at Jesus impaled upon the tree, as we are commanded to do, we see sin’s flesh, the cause of sin, put to death; and the power of that flesh to sin, destroyed by dying, or, as the Apostle puts it, 'The adversary destroyed through death.' Our apprehension of the meaning of the picture presented by Jesus impaled upon the tree is increased, when we remember that 'He poured out his soul (or life’s blood) unto death.' Now, 'The life of all flesh is in the blood' (Lev. 17:14). In view of the fact that there can be no impulse to sin unless blood is coursing through the veins, in what other way was it possible for sin to be destroyed excepting in the mode of the death of Jesus? But now we see Jesus cleansed from the defilement of sin’s flesh by the shedding of his own blood (Heb. 9:22, 23). The emblems on the table represent this phase of the matter, as well as others too numerous to mention now. We see in the bread the crucifixion of sin’s flesh, which, through God, 'Jesus gave for the life of the world.'" (Henry Sulley, The Christadelphian, 1913, p. 149-151).

 

'Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus'