This is one of a number of articles bro John Carter wrote to re-affirm the position of The Christadelphian and the Central ecclesias on the nature of man and the sacrifice of Christ, referred to in the first "Time to Heal" article, (The Christadelphian on the Nature of Man and the Sacrifice of Christ, The Christadelphian, May 1939). This led to the reunion in the 1940's of the Berean ecclesias with Central on the basis of the "Time to Heal" articles, (A Time to Heal, The Christadelphian, December 1940).

The Christadelphian, April 1938, John Carter

“The Reign of Death”

The theory is being put forward that death belongs inevitably to the body of man as he was created; that Adam in course of time would have died apart from having disobeyed the law of God; and that the sentence of death imposed for sin is “the second death.” We die, according to this view, because it is a law of our nature, and not because of any sentence which has been passed by God upon Adam, and which has involved all his descendants.

To those who know the Scriptures the simple statement of this theory would almost seem sufficient to condemn it. But Scripture testimony is twisted to fit the idea, and some are deceived.

It might seem to be an unprofitable topic for discussion and one that did not much matter either way. Some would lightly dismiss it and all similar subjects, as speculative matters and only provocative of strife. “Why bother about what is so briefly narrated in the book of Genesis?” they say; “let us concentrate on the promise of life offered in Jesus Christ.” This sounds very well to the superficial; but how are we then to explain the need for the life which is available in Jesus Christ, and also the sacrifice that he offered that we might have life.

It is here that the importance of the subject comes in. It may not appear to be important whether there was any change in the nature of Adam after his transgression, and whether the reason for our own mortality is to be found in that change. But it is important that we should understand the work of Jesus Christ; and how God has made it possible for us to have everlasting life through that work. It is because the theory we are discussing touches vitally the work of Christ that it is necessary that its nullifying effects upon the revealed principles of Christ’s sacrifice should be perceived.

In apostolic language, Death reigns. A child is born—it may die during its earliest days before it has known either good or evil, or it may grow to adult life. But we know that in time death will come. Why? Is it for the same reason that other forms of life come to an end? The insect, which is a creature of few days, and the animal whose natural span of life exceeds that of man, alike die. Is there no other cause for man’s death than for that of the insect or the animal? We might so conclude if we had no revelation; we should so conclude if we accepted the theory of man’s descent from animal origin as set forth by the teachers of evolution. But with revelation to guide us, another conclusion is reached.

Brother Roberts asks the question: Did the Adamic race commence mortal? And says: “Paul’s dogmatic assertion that ‘by one man (Adam) sin entered into the (human) world’ is a settlement of the question. . . . The man stands on logically unassailable ground who holds that death did not come into the world with Adam, but by him after he came; that at first, he was free from the action of death in his organisation.” Speaking of the sentence, “Thou shalt die,” he says: “The sentence judicially pronounced would write itself in his constitution—after the example of Elisha’s imprecation of the leprosy on Gehazi . . . Mortality has been a fundamental law of human nature from that day to this.” These words are quoted from Visible Hand of God, ch. iv.

The apostle puts Adam and the consequences of his act of disobedience in contrast with Jesus and the consequences of his life of obedience. “By man came death; by man came also the resurrection of the dead” (1 Cor. 15 : 21). The theme is expanded in a series of comparisons and contrasts in Romans 5 : 12–21. The need for the redemptive work of Jesus in the grace of God, is traced to the sin of Adam. Death holds universal sway because of that disobedience, but a way of escape is provided: “That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord” (verse 21). Here are two regnant powers, the one based on sin, the other on righteousness.

No one disputes, whatever explanation of it may be believed, that Jesus had to die as a part of his work. “He was obedient unto death,” as Paul says. If Jesus was a member of the race, sharing the nature which is subject to death because of sin, then we can see in his voluntary submission to it a declaration of God’s righteousness, which Paul says was necessary that God might be righteous while bestowing righteousness by the forgiveness of sins on those who believe (Rom. 3 : 21–26). We see the grace of God in providing Jesus, but we see the triumph of that grace reached through righteousness. But if Jesus and all others inherit a nature which is mortal quite independent of Adam’s sin, why did Jesus have to die? If it be answered that he died for us, then we can only conclude that the innocent suffered for the guilty upon the basis of substitution; and he should not have been raised while those for whom he died should not die. Further, in that case, it was not necessary that he should have to die for himself in any sense, for how can a nature undefiled by sin need a cleansing sacrifice? It could not, and Jesus would not then be a partaker of the benefits of his own work. But this is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. He was “saved out of death” (Heb. 5 : 7); “by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (9 : 12 ). The Mosaic patterns were purified with animal sacrifices, but “the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ is not entered the holy places made with hands . . . nor yet that he should offer himself often . . . For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” (9 : 23–28). “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus Christ, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect” (13 : 20 ).

The theory under discussion resembles in some respects the Renunciationist error which was put before the brethren in 1873. Both theories, whether the promoters see it or not does not affect the fact, represent God as doing wrong. In the words of the pamphlet, The Slain Lamb: “This heresy represents God as doing wrong; for it says of the Christ, the Lamb of God, ‘here is a free life.’ If so, why should a free life die? But Christ, instead of being what is called a free life, was in the condemned nature of the children of Adam. Hence when he died, nothing wrong happened, so far as God’s doings were concerned. The obedience of the Son of God led to his resurrection, and the triumph was complete.”

The terminology has changed, but the essential feature of the error remains: and to quote the same writer’s words in The Blood of Christ, “it was a spiritual necessity that he should partake of our nature. It is expressly said that he did, and John says that any man who denies it . . . denies the truth . . . He is strong in maintaining that Jesus came in the flesh, that is, the flesh of the children, the flesh of David—flesh mortal because of sin.”

The love of Christ in offering himself is a motive power for righteousness in all who partake of the mercy of God brought near in him. As Paul says: “The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died. And he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again” (2 Cor. 5 : 14, 15). “One died for all, therefore all died.” And the all includes the one, for all died in him, he being their representative and not their substitute. The union with Christ in baptism is a union with his death and his resurrection (Col. 2 : 12; Rom. 6 : 4); and the offering of Jesus was a voluntary acknowledgement of what was due to all. Grace and truth meet in Jesus.