The Christadelphian July 1905, C.C. Walker

“Sin and Death”

H. P. R. writes:—“The trouble in Sydney has been far-reaching in its effects, and there are here in Queensland brethren who endorse the (to my mind) unscriptural views which have appeared in the columns of the Shield. While there are others who, while they do not altogether endorse those views seem to accept certain portions as true. For instance, there are some who now believe (with the Editor of the Shield) that the death sentence which was passed on Adam, did not effect a change in his physical constitution. This I believe to be untrue, as shown by our brother Roberts in The Slain Lamb, where he shows that it is in the organisation that the law of mortality resides, and that it is in the physical substance that the principle of death is at work. I further believe that a belief in this ‘no physical change theory’ has a bearing on the nature of Christ and that it is a step in the direction of the ‘free life theory.’ So, with your permission, I will ask a couple of questions to be answered through the columns of the Christadelphian for the benefit of those who have accepted this (to my mind) unscriptural belief, and also for the benefit of those of our number who are in what may be termed a “mental fog” as regards this subject. I would like you to answer as fully as space will allow.”

Question No. 1.—Is it scriptural to believe that the sentence of death which was passed on Adam did not produce any change in Adam’s physical constitution?

Question No. 2.—Has a belief “that the death sentence produced no change in Adam’s physical constitution” any bearing on the nature of Christ? If so, how?

Answer to No. 1.—No, it is not scriptural, as may be seen from the apostolic references to human nature—“this body of death” (Rom. 7:24); “creation groaneth . . . waiting for the redemption of the body” (verses 18–23). These things could not be affirmed of Adam before he sinned; they could afterwards. While we cannot speculate too closely as to the literal character of the fruit of the forbidden tree it is a matter of notoriety that some fruits will produce “change in physical constitution,” even death by poisoning. “The fruit of the vine,” changed somewhat by fermentation, will produce “change in physical constitution” leading to transgression, as is only too well known (Prov. 23:31–33). The connection between sin and “change in physical constitution” is well seen in the works of the Lord Jesus. To say to the paralytic, “Son, thy sins be forgiven thee,” was equivalent to saying, “Arise, take up thy bed and walk” (Matt. 9.). A “change in physical constitution” immediately followed, and the man walked off rejoicing. So also in the case of the impotent man at the pool of Siloam: Jesus said, “Rise, take up thy bed and walk.” And afterwards finding the man in the temple (whither he had repaired, we may suppose, to give thanks to God), he said: “Behold, thou art made whole, sin no more lest a worse thing come unto thee” (John 5.); thus connecting his “impotence” with his sin, and the contrary “change in physical constitution” with the forgiveness of his sin. It is because of the “change in the physical constitution” of Adam that David says: “Behold I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me” (Psa. 51.). The same could have been said of every son of Adam, from Cain downwards; and if any object that it could not be said of Jesus, he has to face the explicit declaration of Paul that God “made him to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21), which is equivalent to “made him to partake of flesh and blood” (Heb. 2:14). The Scriptures thus describe human nature after Adam’s transgression as “sin”; because the new conditions of evil were referable to transgression.

Answer to No. 2.—The bearing upon the nature of Christ of a wrong conclusion concerning the result of Adam’s sin is obvious. If there were “no change in Adam’s physical constitution” because of sin, then sin hath not the power of death, and Jesus could not put it away in crucifixion. There is then no real reason why he should not have partaken of angelic nature. It is, as brother R. perceives, a step at least in the direction of the “free life” theory that was introduced with evil results (and good) into the brotherhood in 1873. It would not be difficult to draw up a list of parallel utterances from the Shield and the records of those times. But we have no wish so to do. “Our purpose is to enlighten, not to condemn”; as Dr. Thomas used to say. And therefore we go on pointing out that for Jesus to “put away sin by the sacrifice of himself” he must have borne “sin” in bearing the condemned nature of Adam after the fall.