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

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

1. “The word sin is used in two principal acceptations in the scripture. It signifies in the first place ‘the transgression of the law’; and in the next, it represents that physical principle of the animal nature, which is the cause of all its diseases, death, and resolution into dust .. Inasmuch as this evil principle pervades every part of the flesh, the animal nature is styled ‘sinful flesh’. that is, ‘flesh full of sin’… Sin, I say, is a synonym for human nature’ (JT, Elp 126,127).

2. “To be ‘made sin’ for others is to become flesh and blood… This perishing body is ‘sin’… ‘Sin’, in its application to the body stands for all its constituents and laws” (JT, Eur 1:247,248).

3. “Christ made sin, though sinless, is the doctrine of God” (JT, Xd 1873:362).

4. “(God) sent (forth) Jesus in the nature of the condemned, that sin might be condemned in him. Hence he was ‘made sin’ ” (RR, Xd 1873:402).

5. “Was he not made sin in being made of a woman, who was mortal because of sin, and could only impart her own sinful flesh to a son begotten of her?” (RR, 1873:463).

6. “Was he (Christ) ‘made sin’ (2Co 5:21)?” Answer (RR): “Yes” (Resurrectional Responsibility Debate, Q 93).

7. “Christ was ‘made sin’ in being born into a sin-constitution of things” (RR, 1898:390).

8. “God ‘hath made him to be sin…’ Partaking thus of the flesh, he was ‘this corruptible’, though in character sinless, and so needed cleansing and redemption as much as his brethren… As to ‘hamartia’, it means sin, and not sin-offering: and we speak from a careful comparison of all the passages in the NT and the LXX (Septuagint). In all the 170 or more occurrences in the NT it is never rendered sin-offering” (CCW, 1922:222).

9. “…2Co 5:21… cannot be rendered ‘made to be a sin-offering’ without doing violence to the meaning of the word ‘hamartia’ and forcing upon it a meaning that it will not bear” (WJ Young. 1922:312).

10. “The Truth is only maintained by faithful contention, and however much we dislike contention, earnest men do not hesitate to contend for the faith… It has been sound Christadelphian teaching from the days of Dr Thomas that Jesus was ‘made sin’ by being, born a member of the human family… Jesus by birth was made sin… If he was not related to sin, in either nature or character… . then a grave injustice was done when he was allowed to suffer on the cross, and there was no declaration of’ God’s righteousness… The publishing of such teaching [ie, that which denies this doctrine — GB] reveals again the absence of that unity… without which union is not possible” (John Carter, 1940:40,41).

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned SIN IN THE FLESH” (Rom 8:3).

1. “…’that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of ‘death that is, the devil’, or sin in flesh” (JT, Elp 99).

2. “Sin… had to he condemned in the nature that had transgressed… . For this cause. ‘Jesus was made a little lower than the angels… that through death he might destroy that having the power of death, that is the diabolos’, or elements of corruption in our nature, inciting it to transgression, and therefore called ‘Sin working death in us’ ” (JT, Eur 1:106).

3. ” ‘Become sin for us’, ‘sin… condemned in the flesh’… . ‘our sins… borne in his body upon the tree — These things could not have been accomplished in a nature destitute of that physical principle, styled ‘Sin in the flesh’ ” (JT, 873:361).

4. Question: “What do you mean by sin in the flesh’…?” “Answer: “David, by the Spirit says, in Psa 51:5: ‘Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me’. [Paul adds] (Rom 7:17): ‘I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Now, what is this element called ‘uncleanness’, ‘sin’, ‘iniquity’, etc?… There is a principle, element, or peculiarity in our constitution… that leads to the decay of the strongest or the healthiest. Its implantation came by sin, for death came by sin and the infliction of death and the implantation of this peculiarity are synonymous things… Because the invisible, constitutional physical inworking of death in us came by sin, that inworking is termed sin. It is a principle of uncleanness and corruption and weakness… For this reason, it is morally operative: for whatever affects the physical, affects the moral. If no counter force were brought into play, its presence would subject us to the uncontrolled dominion of disobedience, through the constitutional weakness and impulse to sin… The body of the Lord Jesus was this same unclean nature in the hand of the Father” (RR, 1874:88).

5. “Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed).

6. ” ‘Sin in the flesh’ will ultimately be the subject of justification through the blood of Christ” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 111, paraphrased).

7. “Sin-in-the-flesh is only the root principle that leads to the various forms of diabolism. All these forms are in harmony with the root… Judas was a devil (Joh 6:70) through the action of sin-in-the-flesh; he hanged himself; that form of sin-in-the flesh was gone; but sin-in-the-flesh survived in all the world. The devil that imprisoned the Smyrnean brethren (Rev 2:10) was a form of sin-in-the-flesh. That form passed away, but generic sin-in-the-flesh continues in all the world. So when it is said that the devil is bound for a thousand years, it is that form of sin-in-the-flesh which exists in the organized governments of the world that is bound: but sin-in-the-flesh remains an ingredient in human nature during all the thousand years, until flesh and blood ceases to exist on earth” (RR, Xd 1898:201). [Aside: It is interesting to note that Robert Roberts uses “sin-in-the-flesh” — with hyphens — eight times in this short answer. He does not always use the phrase with hyphens, but he does most often use the phrase in a hyphenated sense: that is, as though it were a unit. There are some today who refuse to use (or to allow others to use) the phrase in such a fashion, who in fact deny that the flesh is related to sin in any meaningful fashion.]

8. “Paul had to say, ‘sin dwelleth in me’. ‘I see a law in my members warring against the law of my mind’… Sin, as disobedience, arose in (Adam and Eve’s) case from a wrong opinion concerning a matter of lawful desire, and not from what Paul calls ‘sin in the flesh’. It became sin in the flesh when it brought forth that sentence of death that made them mortal… and implanted in their flesh a law of dissolution that became the law of their being. As a law of physical weakness and death, it necessarily became a source of moral weakness. That which originated in sin became a cause of sin in their posterity, and therefore (is) accurately described by Paul as ‘sin in the flesh’ ” (RR, 1898:343).

9. “Sin is a term of double import in the Scriptures: it has a physical as well as a moral application… The Apostle Paul is very precise in his references to sin as a physical principle inherent in human flesh… ‘the body of sin’… ‘Sin… wrought in me’… ‘Sin revived’… ‘Sin… beguiled me’ ‘Sin… working death to me… sin which dwelleth in me’. ‘The law of sin which is in my members’… Sin as spoken of in these verses must necessarily be considered as something different from actual transgression, It is ‘sin’ within that leads to sin in action” (BHeb 181,182).

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh. God sending His own Son in the likeness of SINFUL FLESH, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh” (Rom 8:3).

1. “Sinful flesh being the hereditary nature of the Lord Jesus, he was a fit and proper sacrifice for sin” (JT, Elp 128).

2. “Children are born sinners or unclean because they are born of sinful flesh; and ‘that which is born of the flesh is flesh’, or sin I his is a misfortune, not a crime” (JT, Elp 129).

3. “Joshua [in Zec 3:3,4]… clothed in filthy garments… represents the Christ… clothed with the ‘flesh of sin’, in which, Paul tells us, ‘dwells no good thing’ ” (JT, Eur 1:58).

4. “His nature was flesh and blood (Heb 2:14), which Paul styles ‘sinful flesh’, or flesh full of sin, a physical quality or principle which makes the flesh mortal; and called ‘sin’ because this property of flesh became its law, as the consequence of transgression” (JT. 1873:50l).

5. “In what sense did Christ come in sinful flesh?… Rom 7, immediately preceding, supplies the sense of the words ‘flesh of sin’ used in Rom 8:3. Gal 5 [which defines the ‘works of the flesh’ — GB], and all New Testament allusions to the subject, teach that the flesh of human nature is a sinful thing” (RR, The Slain Lamb, p 19).

6. “Jesus was the sin-nature or sinful flesh of Adam… that sin being thus laid on him he might die for it” (RR, 1873:407,408).

7. “How could Jesus have been made free from that sin which God laid upon him in his own nature, ‘made in the likeness of sinful flesh’, if he had not died for himself as well as for us?” Answer (RR): “He could not” (Res Resp Debate, Q 715).

8. ” ‘Sinful flesh’ is a generic description of human flesh in its total qualities” (RR, 1895:24).

“Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same: that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil” (Heb 2:14).

1. “What is that which has the power of death?… It is the ‘exceedingly great sinner SIN’, in the sense of the ‘Law of Sin and Death’ within all the posterity of Adam, without exception. This, then, is Paul’s Diabolism… ‘He that committeth sin is of the diabolism, for the diabolos sinneth from the beginning’… All this is perfectly intelligible when understood of ‘Sin’s flesh’ ” (JT, Eur 1:249).

2. “Sin in the flesh, then, is the devil destroyed by Jesus in his death” (RR, Christendom Astray, p 172, 1910 ed). [This “sin” was not ceremonially laid upon Christ at some point during his life, or even as he hung on the cross: it was part of him from the moment of his birth, in his very nature and flesh and mind. We must appreciate this fundamental truth.]

3. “The release began with himself. He destroyed that hold which the devil had obtained in himself through extraction from Adam… The devil was not destroyed out of Christ. He was destroyed in him. We have to get into Christ to get the benefit. In him we obtain the deliverance accomplished in him” (RR, 1875:375).

4. “What is meant by the devil in those places (Heb 2:14 and 1Jo 3:8)?” Answer: “I believe it means sin in the flesh” (The Good Confession, Q 120).

5. ” ‘The Devil is a scriptural personification of Sin in the flesh, in its several phases of manifestation…’ This old Christadelphian definition [from the Declaration — GB] is palpably true, and does not need revising; and no exception to its application can be made in Heb 2:14… Dr Thomas wrote upon the subject with a grasp and lucidity that were almost apostolic… ‘Sinful flesh was laid upon him “that through death, he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil”, or sin in the flesh (Heb 2:14)’ [Elp Isr Part 1, ch 3]… Yes, ‘the Devil’ that had the power of death is ‘Sin’, and Christ has ‘destroyed’ him ‘through death’ in himself individually, and will yet destroy him from off the face of the earth” (CCW, 1913:539,541).

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

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

1. “The flesh was the ‘filthy garments’ with which the Spirit-Word was clothed (Zec 3:3); the ‘iniquity of us all’ that was laid upon him; ‘the soul made an offering for sin” (Isa 53:6,10)” (JT, Eur 1:108).

2. “If the principle of corruption had not pervaded the flesh of Jesus… sin could not have been condemned there, nor could he have borne our sins ‘in his own body’ ” (JT, Eur 1:203).

3. “The filthy garments of flesh, styled his’ ‘iniquity’ ” (JT, Eur 2:19).

4. In a reference to the baptism of Jesus: “Jesus, with the sin of the world thus defined, rankling in his flesh, where it was to be condemned to death when suspended on the cross (Rom 8:3), came to John as the ‘Ram of Consecration’, that his inwards and his body might be washed” (JT, 1873:501).

5. ” ‘Iniquities laid on him’. This is a figurative description of what was literally done in God sending forth His Son, made of a woman… This was laid on Jesus in his being made of our nature” (RR, 1873:400),

6. “If… our sins were laid on him in the same way as… on the… animals… (ceremonial… imputativeness)… where then is the substance of the shadow? The ceremonial imposition of sins upon the animals was the type; the real putting of sin on the Lamb of God in the bestowal of a prepared sin-body wherein to die, is the substance” (RR, 1873:462).

7. “He kept himself from ‘his iniquity’ [RR, 18:23]… he must at all times have possessed perfect knowledge of any thought or impulse arising from the flesh contrary to the purpose of his Father, thus leading him to view his temptations as ‘iniquities’ more numerous than the hairs of his head (Psa 40:12). While the ‘iniquity’ that took hold of him was in his flesh, in which dwelleth no good thing… the character which he manifested was perfect… He could say: ‘There was no soundness in his flesh’ [Psa 38:7] because He himself said the flesh profiteth nothing (John 6:63). This testimony is amplified by the spirit in the apostle Paul thus: ‘In me (that is in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing.’ Jesus also could say: ‘There is no rest in my bones because of my sin’ when realizing fully, as he did, that there could be no freedom from temptation so long as he was of flesh and blood nature” (Henry Sulley, 1921:499,500).

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

1. “(From Paul’s statement in Heb 7:27), it follows that there must be a sense in which Jesus offered for himself also, a sense which is apparent when it is recognized that he was under Adamic condemnation, inhering in his flesh” (RR, 1873:405).

2. “If Christ’s offering did not comprehend himself… how are we to understand the statement of Paul (in Heb 7:27)?” (RR, 1873:466).

3. “It was ‘for us’ that he came to be in the position of having first to offer for himself… ‘He was made sin (for us who knew no sin), and does not sin require an offering?” (RR, 1875:139).

4. “As a sufferer from the effects of sin, he had himself to be delivered from those effects; and as the mode of deliverance was by death on the cross, that death was for himself first” (RR, 1875:375).

5. “There is no doubt Jesus fulfilled the Aaronic type of offering for himself” (RR, Res Resp Debate, Q 290, paraphrased).

6. “As the anti-typical High Priest, it was necessary he should offer for himself…” (RR, 1896:341).

7. “He did these things (‘was made perfect’, ‘was saved from death’, ‘obtained redemption’)… ‘for himself’ first… for us only as we may become part of him” (RR, LM 174).

8. “The sacrificial work… ‘For himself that it might be for us’ ” (RR, LM 178).

9. “Does Heb 7:27 teach that Jesus offered for his own sins?… Yes, it says so plainly” (CCW, 1902:148).

10. “That Christ had to offer for himself is testified in Heb 7:27… The reason why is revealed, namely, that he might himself be saved by his own blood. See Heb 13:20” (CCW, 1910:547).

11. “His sacrifice… was first for himself, and then for the people… To say that it was… not for himself, is to contradict the word of God, and to take a step at least towards that doctrine of Antichrist… The salvation was by ‘the blood of thy covenant’ (Zec 11:11), by which both the ‘King’ himself and his ‘prisoners of hope’ are ‘brought again from the dead’. These things have been faithfully upheld as principles of the Truth from the beginning, and contradictory teaching has not been tolerated and should not be now” (CCW, 1921:313).

***

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

“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing” (1Ti 2:15).

A correct understanding of one little word opens up the depth of this phrase. The word “in” is the Greek “DIA” — which means more precisely “through”. This phrase is then very similar to that of 1Co 3:15, where it is said that we are to be saved by (“dia” = “through”) fire (which symbolizes trials — 1Pe 1:7). Also, we read in Acts 14:22: “We must through (DIA) much tribulation enter the kingdom of God.” So we see from these two quotations (and many others) that trials and hardships are the path over which we must all travel; this is the refining vat through which we must each pass, so that our faith may be purified. God does not enjoy seeing us suffer; but by His chastening, He is helping and teaching us to walk in the right ways, and He is molding our characters.

Thus we see childbearing for what it is — a necessary trial for God’s daughters. It was first a punishment placed upon the woman for her part in the first sin: The woman was to have sorrow in childbirth, and her husband was to rule over her (Gen 3:16). But it is by God’s mercy and foresight that the very suffering which serves to remind women of the part Eve played in the original transgression, may be one of the trials through which they may enter the kingdom.

“THE childbearing”

Let us now view this phrase in a slightly different way: In another sense, God made possible the reward of eternal life through that role of woman which was a punishment. In this verse the word “childbearing” is preceded by the definite Greek article: Paul seems to be speaking about a single, very special birth: “THE childbearing”. At the same time that Eve was receiving the punishment for her sin, she also received the promise of a special man to be born, called “the seed of the woman”, through whom the serpent or sin-power would be fatally wounded (Gen 3:15).

This same promise is mentioned by Isaiah — that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, who will be called “God with us” (Isa 7:14). And also in Jer 31:22 — that a new thing shall happen: a woman shall compass the man. These promises were all fulfilled in the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, who was conceived not by the will of man, but by the Spirit of the Most High overshadowing Mary (Mat 1:21-25). This same Jesus, throughout his life, resisted the impulses of sin in all ways, and died a sacrificial death so that the way to life might be opened to all men and women. Thus the sisters can take courage to serve God in quietness and self-restraint now (1Ti 2:9-12), comforted with the hope offered by the “seed of the woman”.

The bearing of spiritual fruit

We may view this phrase in yet another aspect — that of a spiritual, rather than a natural, “bearing”. Through this we are all saved. In Rom 7:4 Paul likens the ecclesia to a woman — as he so commonly does. Her former husband has died — which is a way of saying that we have become dead Co the present world and its lusts, and that we are no longer the servants of sin (Rom 6:17). With her first husband now dead, she is at liberty to be married to another, Christ who was raised from the dead. And this new alliance (which we now have with Christ) is for the purpose of bringing forth fruit unto God (Rom 7:4). With Christ’s help, in our new relationship with him, we may produce “the FRUIT of the Spirit”, love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, and temperance (Gal 5:22,23). We may then be saved through this bringing forth of fruit — this new walk in the Truth, this new life in Christ, with new desires and new goals. The “child” which each saint bears is himself: “a new man in Christ Jesus”. We must be “born again” (John 3:5) — not only by water at baptism, but by the Spirit-word (1Pe 1:23) to “newness of life” (Rom 6:4). By doing this we shall be saved.

The seven sayings from the cross:

Sayings	References	Qualities of Christ	Lessons (Psalms references)
Before darkness:
1. “Father, forgive them”	Luke 23:34	Mercy	Our need of forgiveness (Psa 32:1)
2. “…in paradise”	Luke 23:43	Hope	Certainty of hope (Psa 16:8-11)
3. “Woman, behold son… behold mother”	John 19:26,27	Love	Providing for needy (Psa 22:9,10)
During darkness:
4. “My God… forsaken me”	Mat 27:46; Mar 15:34	Dedication	Benefit of Christ’s sacrifice (Psa 22:1)
After darkness:
5. “I thirst”	John 19:28	Sufferings	Desire for truth (Psa 22:14,15)
6. “It is finished”	John 19:30	Victory	Confidence in future (Psa 22:31)
7. “Father, into your hands…”	Luke 23:46	Faith	Divine acceptance (Psa 31:5)

Solomon’s reign typical of Christ’s reign:

1. Jerusalem the throne: 2Ch 9:30 (Jer 3:17).
2. One king and a united nation: 1Ki 4:20 (Eze 37:22).

3. Israel powerful: 1Ki 4:20 (Mic 4:7).
4. Israel chief to the nations: 1Ki 4:21 (Mic 4:8).
5. Gentiles bring tribute: 2Ch 9:23,24 (Isa 60:11).

6. Great fertility: 1Ki 4:22-28 (Isa 35:1,2).

7. Submissive nations: 1Ki 4:21 (Psa 72:8).
8. Security and peace: 1Ki 4:25 (Eze 34:28).

9. Jerusalem the center of wisdom: 1Ki 4:34 (Isa 2:2).

10. Jerusalem the center of worship: 2Ch 9:23 (Zec 14:16).
11. The temple built: 1Ki 6 (Zec 6:13).

12. Gentiles involved in its building: 2Ch 2:2 (Isa 60:10).

13. Zadok the priest: 1Ki 1:34 (Heb 7:11,12).
14. “Satan” to be bound: 1Ki 5:4 (Rev 20:2).

15. Israel to be a blessing to others: 2Ch 9:26 (Isa 19:25).

“This is a faithful saying” (1Ti 1:15). “Faithful” signifies sure, positive, true, trustworthy, reliable. In the Pastoral Epistles there are five “faithful sayings”; the expression seems to indicate that they are sayings which had become proverbial in the ecclesia at the stage of development implied in the Pastorals (between 60 and 65 AD); and that they are either statements of doctrine concisely expressed or else maxims of Christian conduct.

It is likely that “faithful saying” is an echo of the prayer which traditionally followed the recital of the words, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is One” (Deu 6:4). May these be our words, an “Amen” of assent to the sound words of God:

“True and firm, established and enduring, right and faithful, beloved and precious, desirable, and pleasant, revered and mighty, well-ordered and acceptable, good and beautiful IS THIS THY WORD unto us forever.”

For in these words, whether he is quoting an established ecclesial saying, a fragment of a Christian hymn or a doctrinal statement, the Apostle relates it to the purpose he has in hand: the restraint of false teaching and the edification of the ecclesia through the wise guidance of responsible members. However he speaks, then, he speaks as the oracles of God; and this God is faithful (1Co 1:9:10:13), having provided us sure words by which to live.

Just as God was a God of truth, so the sayings of the Apostle Paul bore the stamp of God, the stamp of faithfulness and authenticity (2Co 1:18,20). As we consider each of the “faithful sayings” of the Pastoral Epistles separately we shall see their force and beauty. And we shall see the characteristic way in which Paul uses them to express the teaching of him who said to another apostle:

“Write, for these sayings are true and {b}faithful{b}” (Rev 22:6).

Let us note the progression of the five faithful sayings, all in the Pastoral epistles, which outline the process of salvation from Paul’s viewpoint:

• The beginning of our probation, with Christ’s sacrifice for us, effective through faith and baptism: “This is a faithful saying… that Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief” (1Ti 1:15,16).

• The continuation of our good beginning, by working in the truth: “…If a man desire the office of a bishop” (1Ti 3:1).

• Growing in the grace and mercy and peace of Christ: “Godliness is profitable unto all things” (1Ti 4:8).

• Gradually striving and growing yet further, becoming dead to the world and alive in Christ: “…If we be dead with him, we shall live with him” (1Ti 2:11).

• And the conclusion of God’s work of salvation in us — life eternal: “…We should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life” (Tit 3:7,8).

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Scarlet Letter” (1850), the story is told of a young woman, Hester Prynne, who has an adulterous affair and bears a child out of wedlock. The world in which she lives (Puritan New England) is staunchly and vehemently opposed to such sin, and treats Hester accordingly. Not only is she shunned from proper society, as not fit to be spoken to except in cases of absolute necessity, but by judicial and community decree she is condemned to wear, embroidered on the breast of her garment, a large scarlet letter “A” — which presumably denotes her sin — that of Adultery. It is fascinating to observe, as the story develops, how Hester deals with her “punishment”, and how the community deals with her sin, and with Hester herself. The quoted extract deals with a time some years after the original sin and punishment, after Hester has spent years living a life of modesty, uprightness, and devoted service to others less fortunate and in need. Among other things, it has something profound to say about the overcoming of adversities — whether self-inflicted or randomly received.

---

It was perceived, too, that, while Hester never put forward even the humblest title to share in the world’s privileges — farther than to breathe the common air, and earn daily bread for little Pearl [her illegitimate daughter] and herself by the faithful labor of her hands — she was quick to acknowledge her sisterhood with the race of man, whenever benefits were to be conferred. None so ready as she to give of her little substance to every demand of poverty; even though the bitter-hearted pauper threw back a gibe in requital of the food brought regularly to his door, or the garments wrought for him by the fingers that could have embroidered a monarch’s robe. None so devoted as Hester, when pestilence stalked through the town. In all seasons of calamity, indeed, whether general or of individuals, the outcast of society at once found her place. She came, not as a guest, but as a rightful inmate, into the household that was darkened by trouble; as if its gloomy twilight were the only medium in which she was entitled to hold intercourse with her fellow-creatures. There glimmered the embroidered letter, with comfort in its unearthly ray. Elsewhere the token of sin, it was the taper of the sick-chamber. It had even thrown its gleam, in the sufferer’s hard extremity, across the verge of time. It had shown him where to set his foot, while the light of earth was fast becoming dim, and ere the light of futurity could reach him. In such emergencies, Hester’s nature showed itself warm and rich; a well-spring of human tenderness, unfailing to every real demand, and inexhaustible by the largest. Her breast, with its badge of shame, was but the softer pillow for the head that needed one. She was self-ordained a Sister of Mercy; or, we may rather say, the world’s heavy hand had so ordained her, when neither the world nor she looked forward to this result. The letter was the symbol of her calling. Such helpfulness was found in her — so much power to do, and power to sympathize — that many people refused to interpret the scarlet A by its original signification. They said that it meant Abel; so strong was Hester Prynne, with a woman’s strength.

It was only the darkened house that could contain her. When sunshine came again, she was not there. Her shadow had faded across the threshold. The helpful inmate had departed, without one backward glance to gather up the meed of gratitude, if any were in the hearts of those whom she had served so zealously. Meeting them in the street, she never raised her head to receive their greeting. If they were resolute to accost her, she laid her finger on the scarlet letter, and passed on. This might be pride, but was so like humility, that it produced all the softening influence of the latter quality on the public mind. The public is despotic in its temper; it is capable of denying common justice, when too strenuously demanded as a right; but quite as frequently it awards more than justice, when the appeal is made, as despots love to have it made, entirely to its generosity. Interpreting Hester Prynne’s deportment as an appeal of this nature, society was inclined to show its former victim a more benign countenance than she cared to be favored with, or, perchance, than she deserved.

The rulers, and the wise and learned men of the community, were longer in acknowledging the influence of Hester’s good qualities than the people. The prejudices which they shared in common with the latter were fortified in themselves by an iron framework of reasoning, that made it a far tougher labor to expel them. Day by day, nevertheless, their sour and rigid wrinkles were relaxing into something which, in the due course of years, might grow to be an expression of almost benevolence. Thus it was with the men of rank, on whom their eminent position imposed the guardianship of the public morals. Individuals in private life, meanwhile, had quite forgiven Hester Prynne for her frailty; nay, more, they had begun to look upon the scarlet letter as the token, not of that one sin, for which she had borne so long and dreary a penance, but of her many good deeds since. “Do you see that woman with the embroidered badge?” they would say to strangers. “It is our Hester — the town’s own Hester — who is so kind to the poor, so helpful to the sick, so comfortable to the afflicted!” Then, it is true, the propensity of human nature to tell the very worst of itself, when embodied in the person of another, would constrain them to whisper the black scandal of bygone years. It was none the less a fact, however, that, in the eyes of the very men who spoke thus, the scarlet letter imparted to the wearer a kind of sacredness, which enabled her to walk securely amid all peril. Had she fallen among thieves, it would have kept her safe. It was reported, and believed by many, that an Indian had drawn his arrow against the badge, and that the missile struck it, but fell harmless to the ground.

(From Nathaniel Hawthorne, “The Scarlet Letter”).

Those who regularly use the RSV should take careful note of Gen 13:15: “For all the land which you (Abraham) see I will give to you and your descendants (AV “seed”) forever.”

On this point the RSV is not even internally consistent, since its translation of Gal 3:16 rightly states that this promise was to Abraham and his “offspring”, singular, “referring to one… which is Christ.”

Both “seed” and “offspring” appropriately translate the Hebrew original “zera” which is itself ambiguous as to number. But the RSV’s interpretive translation, “descendants”, is in direct violation of Paul’s later exposition, and therefore clearly wrong. Only translators totally ignorant of the significance of the Abrahamic promises could make such a blunder.

The same erroneous translation occurs in the RSV [and the NIV] of Gen 22:17,18: “And your descendants (AV “seed”) shall possess the gate of their (AV “his”) enemies. And by your descendants (AV “seed”) shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves.”

This, despite the fact that the NT repeatedly interprets this promise as fulfilled in Christ, who destroys his great enemy death by gaining possession over its “gate”, the grave (1Co 15:26,55,56; Rev 1:18; 20:6)!

This word “Selah” occurs for the first time in Psa 3. It is used 71 times in the Psalms and three other times (all in Hab 3). The scholars have a great deal of difficulty with this word, and widely varying opinions are offered as to its meaning and purpose. One thought emerges, however, from the tangle of conflicting definitions and opinions: “Selah”, whether a musical term or not, carries the implication of pausing or resting (LXX, Young). It is therefore a thought link for reflection or meditation. When occurring at the end of a psalm “Selah” forms a close link with the succeeding psalm. Therefore on several occasions (Psalms 3/4, 9/10, 24/25, and 46/47) we have the plain indication to join two psalms together in our study.

“Selah” may also refer to the Rock (Heb “Sela”) — a common name of God in the Psalms (Psa 18:2; 31:3; 40:2; 42:9; 71:3; 78:16), probably with special reference to the altar-rock in Zion (see esp Isa 8:14; 28:16; Psa 118:22; and WBS 111-116), upon which sacrifice was offered to Him. Thus “Selah” may indicate that the singers should pause for reflection or meditation, while the priests proceed to offer the sacrifice.

Regarding sacrifice, note esp the context of “Selah” in the following passages: Psa 20:3; 24:6; 32:5; 39:11; 44:8; 54:5; 57:3,6; 61:4; 81:7; 87:3,6.

The Destruction of Sennacherib’s Host Lord Byron, 1788-1824

The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold, And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold; And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea, When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

Like the leaves of the forest when summer is green, That host with their banners at sunset were seen. Like the leaves of the forest when autumn hath blown, That host on the morrow lay wither’d and strown.

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,

And breathed in the face of the foe as he pass’d; And the eyes of the sleepers wax’d deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and forever grew still!

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide, But through it there roll’d not the breath of his pride; And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf, And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

And there lay the rider distorted and pale, With the dew on his brow, and the rust on his mail; And the tents were all silent, the banners alone, The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail, And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal; And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword, Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!