“Redemption in Christ Jesus” was written to refute the Renunicationist Clean Flesh beliefs of the Nazarene fellowship who renounced Christadelphian beliefs on the atonement with Edward Turney. Many of the arguments in this book are applicable to Shield Clean Flesh even though there are differences.

Redemption in Christ Jesus, 1946, W. F. Barling

“5. Implications Examined”

Three beliefs, to which members of the Nazarene Fellowship are by their legal theory committed, have now to be examined in detail.

1. Man’s Nature Is Not Constitutionally Sinful

Nazarene authors declare that transgression altered only Adam’s position in relation to law, and “did not cause his flesh to be changed”. They therefore regard man as still “very good”, and to be “just what the Creator made him”. The Scripture that every man is enticed to sin by his own lust ( Jas. 1: 14 ) is made “to include Adam in Eden” to the extent that the impulses which led Adam to eat unlawfully are defined as “God-implanted natural desires”. Logic is invoked to prove this. It is emphasized first that Eve—sinless as yet—experienced “the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life” in as real a sense as any man since ( Gen. 3: 6 ). From this it is inferred, secondly, that if these impulses are sinful now, they were also sinful in Eve who has transmitted them to posterity. Lastly, since these impulses must (it is claimed) in the first place be attributed to God who endowed man with them, we are expected to conclude that “there is not in fact one inclination in all the human mind but what, when you consider it, is good in itself”. Otherwise, it is argued, “if any of the senses or faculties of man are sin, then God is the author of sin”.

Such reasoning is contrary to Scripture. John explicitly declares the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life to be “ not of the Father , but of the world” ( 1 John 2 : 16 ). There could be no more emphatic testimony that these “lusts” are not desires which can be attributed initially to God, but sinful propensities which only came to exist as a result of the first offence. The “lust of the world” and “the will of God” are essentially antagonistic (verse 17 ). Disciples should therefore “no longer live to the lusts of men, but to the will of God” ( 1 Pet. 4 : 2 ), for, far from being “God-implanted”, lusts are “of Diabolos” ( John 8: 44 ).

In the Genesis account we are informed of the advent of sinful lust. God endowed man with a capacity for hunger and provided for its satisfaction ( Gen. 2: 9 , 16 ; 3 : 2 ). Accordingly, the trees both stimulated and satisfied appetite in Adam and Eve, with one exception—the tree in the midst of the Garden ( 3 : 3 ). For the forbidden tree they knew no desire (and consequently experienced no unlawful lust) until the external tempter “beguiled Eve”; for, when the serpent first questioned the divine prohibition, Eve’s answer was indicative of a disposition of implicit obedience—“God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it”. Far from being “drawn away” of her own lust (as Nazarene authors allege), Eve as yet knew no temptation. The first lie, of which the unenlightened serpent was the father ( John 8: 44 ), altered this, and it was upon belief of that lie— and not before —that Eve knew temptation. “The serpent said, Ye shall not surely die ... God doth know that ye shall be as gods ... and when the woman saw that the tree was good for food ... pleasant to the eyes ... and to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof and did eat” ( Gen. 3: 6 ). What Eve now experienced was not the innocent sensation of hunger which the tree had not hitherto stimulated, but an urge to indulge appetite for an ulterior purpose. This was Eve’s first experience of “lust”—which is clearly attributable to the serpent’s reasoning—and so of temptation. In brief,

1. the serpent enticed and deceived her (verse 13 );

2. in heeding, Eve experienced lust (verse 6 );

3. lust brought forth sin.

In the case of Adam the process was repeated:

1. Eve was the initial outward tempter (verses 6 , 12 );

2. her words aroused unlawful desire (verse 17 );

3. lust brought forth sin.

By their voluntary belief in, and consequent obedience to, the first lie, their nature was vitiated so that they hid themselves from God (verses 7–10 ), and their simplicity, or innocence, was corrupted ( 2 Cor. 11 : 3 ). Ever since, this moral corruption has persisted as an evil property of human nature, part of the vanity to which God made creation subject until the day of salvation ( Rom. 8 : 20–25 ).

If the Nazarene denial of this fact be true, and human nature is not sinfully inclined, then, theoretically, it should not be hard to do good, nor yet easy to do evil. But it is implicit throughout Scripture that, in practice, to be imperfect is dangerously easy. Disciples must take heed lest they sin ( Luke 21: 34 ), fear lest they come short ( Heb. 4: 1 ), beware lest they be not steadfast ( 2 Pet. 3 : 17 ). From the use of such language one must infer that man is initially disposed to do wrong. Conversely, it is not easy for him to acquire the inclination always to do right, for disciples must strive to enter in at the strait gate ( Luke 13: 24 ), press toward the mark ( Phil. 3: 14 ), be diligent to be found without spot and blameless ( 2 Pet. 3 : 14 ).

There is thus a bias to evil within man which has to be offset by an acquired tendency to do good ( Col. 3: 1 ). This bias must either have been implanted at Creation, or be the direct consequence of Adam’s transgression. The first proposition is inconceivable; the second states the facts.

2. Christ’s Resurrection Played No Part in Man’s Redemption

A forfeited article ceases to be the pawnbroker’s property the moment the price is paid for its redemption. Consequently, for those who have a strictly legal notion of our redemption, Christ’s violent death (which occurred typically when the animal was slain to provide skins) immediately released Adam’s life unconditionally from bondage. That is, though Christ’s resurrection was the outcome of the sinlessness which made him an acceptable sacrifice, it was (so it must be inferred) in no way essential for man’s redemption.

Such a conclusion is utterly at variance with the plainest Scripture. In the Word, the terms “redemption” and “justification” are used synonymously. Thus a man is both redeemed ( 1 Pet. 1 : 18–19 ) and justified ( Rom. 5: 9 ) by the blood of Christ. That aspect of the work of redemption and justification which God delegated to Christ ( John 17: 4 ) was “finished” on Calvary ( 19 : 30 ). But that the work as a whole was not complete is evident, for “Jesus our Lord was delivered for our offences and raised again for our justification ” ( Rom. 4 : 24–25 ). Here we have explicit proof that Christ’s resurrection was as vital to our redemption as his death.

Paul provides us with further proof in 1 Cor. 15 . His argument is simple. If Christ did not rise from the dead to live eternally, neither can anyone else (verse 18 ), for if the sinless One was holden of death, who among sinners can hope to rise from the tomb? Logically it would be manifestly unjust for the redeemed sinner to rise if the sinless Redeemer remained dead. But Paul is seeking to establish not that obvious fact, but another; he is stressing, not that it would be unjust, but impossible, for, “if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain, ye are yet in your sins ” (verse 17 ). Far from reassuring the Corinthians that the resurrection of Christ was a matter of indifference (in so far as failure by Christ to rise could not annul the fact that his Crucifixion had already redeemed them absolutely), Paul clearly informs them that, however fervent their belief in Jesus as their Saviour, unless Christ rose they were still unredeemed . His reasoning is further incontrovertible evidence that the resurrection of the Redeemer was essential for man’s redemption. Only by himself rising from the tomb could he become the first fruits of the redeemed harvest, and bring resurrection, where Adam had brought death (verses 20–21 ).

The implicit evidence of Scripture is no less weighty than the precise statements of Paul. As Christ died and rose again, so must the believer. In the scheme of redemption Christ’s death (a negative factor) was balanced by his resurrection (a positive factor), for “in that he died, he died unto Sin, but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God” ( Rom. 6: 10 ). Similarly, believers also die to Sin (verse 11 ), and are thereby redeemed, or “made free”, from it (verse 18 ). But the process cannot end there for them since it did not end there for the Redeemer. In the tomb Jesus was dead to Sin, but not alive to God; when baptized the believer is dead and free from Sin (verse 7 ), but not yet alive from the dead (verse 13 ). He must rise to a newness of life, or a state of justification, which corresponds in his case to the experience of physical resurrection by Christ; being buried with him, he must also rise with him ( Col. 2: 12 ).

Peter stresses this positive aspect of baptism by comparing it with the Ark. The Ark ensured newness of life in the earth after the death of the Flood, and so was analogous to baptism. Thus Peter concludes it to be “the like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us ... by the resurrection of Jesus Christ ” ( 1 Pet. 3 : 21 ). Thus, as the Crucifixion of Christ saves us, so “doth also” his resurrection; “for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life ” ( Rom. 5: 10 ). Salvation by his life would have been impossible unless Christ rose. Thus God not only “brought Christ down from above” but also “brought up Christ again from the dead” ( Rom. 10 : 6–9 ), since both the gift ( John 3 : 13–16 ), and resurrection ( Rom. 1: 4 ) of his Son were vital to our salvation.

Unquestionably, therefore, our redemption is predicated on the fact that Christ not merely “died” for our sins, but also “rose again” the third day. He both “laid down” his life and “took it again” ( John 10: 18 ). In that way “the Father hath begotten us again unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead ” ( 1 Pet. 1 : 3 ).

3. There Exists a Personal Devil

“I do not believe”, states one Nazarene author, “in a personal devil”. He then adds significantly, “but I verily believe that Jesus redeemed us with his blood from something”. His belief in this indeterminate “something” is a logical requirement of his own premises. Before redemption, in the strictly legal sense of the term, can be transacted, there must be an article in pawn, someone to redeem it, a redemption-price to be surrendered in exchange for it, and, essentially also, a pawnbroker to whom the price is paid for its release. Consequently, the Nazarene theory (which presupposes that redemption from sin is a wholly legal matter) has to identify each of these in turn. Thus the forefeited article is said to be Adam’s life, God is the purchaser, and the blood of Christ the price of man’s redemption. But the theory is not complete in itself until it discloses also the identity of the pawnbroker. It is here that the devil assumes its place in the Nazarene scheme, being defined for us as “the first Sin personified, into whose power Adam sold himself and all his family”. The fact that the devil, thus understood “is simply the personification of any thing or person which opposes the will of God and is non-existent as a personality” does not (so the same writer argues) make it “any the less a real power and the bondage of those in its service less of an actuality”.

The real reason for such an assertion is not hard to find. For those who hold this legal theory the pawnbroker is an indispensable participant in the scheme of redemption, so they are obliged somehow to fill his office. For this purpose they postulate an abstraction (i.e. a sin which, when committed, at once became the lawful owner of the sinner). This they identify with the oft-mentioned Adversary of God—the devil. Then, on the assumption that the devil as they conceive of him is the only alternative to the imaginary Devil of orthodoxy, they conclude that the theory which necessitates his existence in this legal capacity must be true. In the words of the same writer, “since a recognition of the way in which that which is in opposition to God is personified is essential to an understanding of His purpose, it is sheer perversity to ignore it, and then complain that we cannot solve the problem of which it is the missing factor”.

This is not argument but assertion made in support of a preconceived idea. But what matters most is that the conception of the devil (or Diabolos) with which it presents us is false to Scripture. Since the first sin is denied to be the cause of all subsequent sin, it can (when appointed to be the overlord of mankind) possess only imputed legal power, not an actual potent moral influence. But no conception could be more inconsistent with Scripture, in which Diabolos is anything but a legal authority possessing only attributed power. Paul speaks of the snares and wiles of Diabolos ( 1 Tim. 3 : 7 ; Eph. 6: 11 ). James bids us resist him ( Jas. 4: 7 ). Diabolos is defined by Jesus as the wicked one who defeats the work of the Sower ( Matt. 13: 19 , 38 ). John says that Diabolos put into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray Jesus ( John 13: 2 ), and that whoever commits sin is of Diabolos ( 1 John 3 : 8 ).

The use of personification in these and similar Scriptural statements is obvious, but so also is the fact that what is personified as Diabolos is an active beguiling force. Since it tempts men to sin, it is also called Sin by metonomy, so that in so far as a man resists Diabolos he also avoids being “hardened through the deceitfulness of Sin” ( Heb. 3: 13 ). Finally, Diabolos is described literally as “the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience” ( Eph. 2: 2 ), and so contrasts with “the Word of God which effectually worketh ” in those that believe ( 1 Thess. 2 : 13 ). This can only mean that Diabolos (or Sin, as the cause of transgression) is, in Scripture, an active spirit of disobedience, hostile to God’s Law. For that reason the language of active deception befits it, whereas such language is grotesquely inappropriate when applied to the devil postulated by the Nazarene Fellowship, who is a pure invention.

The Scriptures leave us in no doubt where the true Diabolos resides and operates. In order that by his death he might destroy Diabolos Jesus partook of flesh and blood ( Heb. 2: 14 ). “Now if I do that I would not”, declares Paul, “it is no more I that do it, but Sin that dwelleth in me” ( Rom. 7: 20 ). “Do ye think”, asks James, “that the Scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?” ( Jas. 4: 5 ), and he attributes strife to lusts that war in the members (verse 1 ). These and other apostolic pronouncements make it abundantly clear that Diabolos must be located in man’s physical constitution.

Members of the Nazarene Fellowship deny this fact. On the other hand their own conception of the devil does not conform to the Scriptural image. They therefore cannot logically disown the belief that it is the traditional Devil of orthodoxy who inspires men to do evil.

The conclusion is obvious. A theory of sin and redemption which implies error must itself be false.